


^6. 







-7; * ^ vm- 






W 














^, A*' I*''"'' 




A^ O 



*«°<* 









/\ 




'%.'' v '\<^ %*•••*• a 00 

* A- ^ 




°° *<i**'^*% ^-^f"^ yv^.V"' '" ( 





W 



o^ . o"o« "^ .^> ,i- <c 




O « A 



►.^*i:.X a?>^^.^ ^ ....- 



publications 



OF THE 



^University, of Pennsylvania 



SERIES IN 

HISTORY 



No. 2 



THE SUFFRAGE FRANCHISE IN THE 

THIRTEEN ENGLISH COLONIES 

IN AMERICA 

BY 

ALBERT EDWARD MCKINLEY 



Sometime Honorary Fellow in American History in the 
University of Pennsylvania 



Published for the University 

PHILADELPHIA 

1905 

Ginn & Co., Selling Agents, 29 Beacon Street, Boston, Mass. 



■ 
FEB 4 1905 

COPY 8. 



Copyright, 1905, by 
Albert Edward McKinley 



{publications 



^University, of Pennsylvania 



SERIES IN 

HISTORY 



No. 2 



THE SUFFRAGE FRANCHISE IN THE 

THIRTEEN ENGLISH COLONIES 

IN AMERICA 

BY 

ALBERT EDWARD MCKINLEY 



Sometime Honorary Fellow in American History in the 
University of Pennsylvania 



Published for the University 

PHILADELPHIA 

1905 
Ginn & Co., Selling Agents, 29 Beacon Street, Boston, Mass. 



PREFACE 



This historical sketch of the colonial suffrage is the out- 
growth of studies begun several years ago in the Department 
of Philosophy of the University of Pennsylvania. The pur- 
pose of the writer has been to present the dynamic or devel- 
opmental aspect of the subject rather than the analytic; he 
has not been content with a mere summary of the suffrage 
qualifications in the several colonies, but has endeavored to 
trace the growth of colonial ideals and practices respecting 
the elective franchise. A comparative or analytic treatment 
might have been of value to the student of colonial institu- 
tions, but there were sufficient reasons for putting this 
method aside. In the first place, the excellent analysis to be 
found in Bishop's History of Elections in the American Colo-^ 
nies could scarcely be improved upon; and, secondly, the 
comparative arrangement would give but slight opportunity 
for the narrative element. Consequently, the subject has 
been treated locally ; and, wherever the existing records have 
rendered such treatment possible, sufficient details have been 
given to lead to a comprehension of the motives of colonial 
legislators in their policy of suffrage restrictions. The dis- 
advantages of repetition have been braved rather than sacri- 
fice the consecutive narrative in any colony. 

To a complete knowledge of the suffrage franchise, an ac- 
quaintance with the representative systems, the methods of 
voting and the whole elective machinery is necessary; and 
frequent references have been made to these subjects. The 
author has, however, had in mind the fact that detailed stud- 
ies of some of these features have already been made, and he 
has governed himself largely in the inclusion or rejection of 
such material, by the extent to which it has hitherto been 
used. Thus in the New England colonies, the systems of 
which have been carefully studied, he has limited himself 
narrowly to the suffrage qualifications ; in other cases, as in 



iv Preface. 

the Camlinas and New York, more attention has been given 
under which the suffrage was exer- 

material fur the study has been gathered almost ex- 
ni the printed records of the several colonies, and 
i the various editions of colonial laws. For the latter, 
continuous use has been made, during the preparation of the 
k, of the valuable Charlemagne Tower Collection of Col- 
li Laws in the library of the Historical Society of Penn- 
. ania. The writer regrets that the two volumes of Pro- 
>r 11. L. Osgood, which have done so much to classify 
the facts and clarify our ideas of colonial administration in 
the seventeenth century, were not in print during the prepa- 
ration of this volume. The absence of an extended bibliog- 
raphy is to be accounted for by the copious use of foot-notes. 
In conclusion, the author wishes to extend his thanks for 
the encouragement and advice given so generously by the 
members of the Department of History of the University of 
Pennsylvania, and particularly to express his appreciation of 
the interest in the work shown by Professor John Bach Mc- 
M aster and Professor Herman V. Ames. At a time when it 
seemed that the work must remain unfinished, their interest 
led to its completion. Acknowledgment is gratefully made 
also of the uniform courtesy shown to the author by the 
librarian of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Mr. 
John W. Jordan, and by his assistants, during many months 
of almost continuous use of the Society's collections. 

Albert E. McKinley. 

Philadelphia, January, 1905. 



CONTENTS 



CHAPTER PAGE 

I. Parliamentary Suffrage in England i 

II. The Suffrage in Virginia 17 

III. The Suffrage in Maryland 48 

IV. The Suffrage in North Carolina 79 

V. The Suffrage in South Carolina -.- 122 

VI. The Suffrage in Georgia 163 

VII. The Suffrage in New York 174 

VIII. The Suffrage in New Jersey 227 

IX. The Suffrage in Delaware 259 

X. The Suffrage in Pennsylvania 273 

XL The Suffrage in Massachusetts 300 

XII. The Suffrage in New Hampshire 370 

XIII. The Suffrage in Connecticut 380 

XIV. The Suffrage in Rhode Island 430 

XV. Conclusion 473 

Index 489 



THE SUFFRAGE FRANCHISE IN 
THE ENGLISH COLONIES 

CHAPTER I. 
Parliamentary Suffrage in England. 

The thirteen American colonies were communities whose 
thoughts and habits as well as language were English.. 
Groups of settlers from other nations might be found along 
the Atlantic seaboard in the seventeenth and eighteenth cen- 
turies, but their numbers were, proportionately, small, and 
their influence upon American institutions slight. But while 
the colonies were distinctively English, they were also 
American. Frequent reference will be made in the follow- 
ing pages to the purely arbitrary English suffrage qualifi- 
cation of an annual income of forty shillings from freehold 
land, which at one time or another the strength of English 
precedent forced upon the voters of more than half of the 
colonies. On the other hand, the only reason for making 
this study has been to show the adaptation of English politi- 
cal ideals and practices to American conditions; had the 
new environment or conscious endeavor forced no change in 
the English customs, this story would have been but a short 
one. 

The body of this work will, therefore, be devoted to an 
account of the attempt in each colony to administer the Eng- 
lish theories of election and representation under widely 
different conditions from those which held good in the Eng- 
land of colonial days. We shall trace the influence of cheap 
land, of religious zeal, or of frontier ideals of equality upon 
the English aristocratic political system ; and we shall notice 
the ever-continuing effort of the English authorities to dupli- 



2 i kise in the English Colonics. 

in the diverse American settlements the political fran- 

gland In the final chapter the features of diver- 

grlisfa system will be summarized and the 

poi] imilarity collated The present chapter will be 

►rt account of the parliamentary suffrage in 

In the seventeenth century, the age of greatest American 
nization, the English House of Commons was still repre- 
it had been for over three hundred years, of two 
quite distinct constituencies. There were, first, the county 
representatives, two of whom were elected for each county 
of England, and one for each Welsh county; and secondly, 
the corporation members, two of whom usually, but in a 
cases only one, came from the cities, 1 certain designated 
towns or boroughs, the Cinque ports and the two universi- 
ties. Previous to 1677 frequent changes in the number of 
members of the house were made; but after that date, until 
the reform act of 1832, there were 513 representatives of 
England and Wales. Of this number, 92 came from the 
counties, and the remainder, 421, represented the various 
corporations. 2 

The electors of these county and corporation members 
were required to possess definite qualifications, certain of 
which were imposed upon all electors of members of parlia- 
ment, while others were required only of narrow groups of 
electors. The ancient age restriction of twenty-one years 
was required of all electors, 3 and the immemorial exclusion 
of women from political life was always adhered to in the 
letter, although perhaps broken in the spirit in the elections 

1 London alone sent four representatives. 

1 Porritt, The Unrcformed House of Commons, I, 15-17. 

* Originally there were several ages at which men of different classes 
of society reached a legal station (Pollock and Maitland, History of 
English Law, II, 436) ; but at the time of the colonization of America 
the age of twenty-one years required for those who held by knight's 
• Bid been extended from the gentry and had become the lawful 
age for all classes {ibid.; Coke, Inst., I, 78 b, 171 b, 245 b; Black- 
stone, I, 173). 



Parliamentary Suffrage in England. 3 

of a few boroughs. 1 The actual presence of the elector, a 
requirement which made proxy voting illegal, 2 was found 
throughout the English elective system, and led to an opposi- 
tion in England to the establishment of balloting methods 
in America. 3 The voter in all cases must be either a native- 
born English citizen, or a naturalized foreigner. 4 

Besides these time-honored qualifications, there were more 
temporary ones which for a greater or less length of time 
were imposed upon all electors. These were commonly some 
form of oath or attachment to the established government. 
Thus under Cromwell, the Instrument of Government of 
1653 excluded Catholics from all elections for members of 
parliament, and disfranchised all who had " aided, advised, 
assisted or abetted" the war against Parliament, " unless 
they have been since in the service of the Parliament, and 
given signal testimony of their good affection thereunto." 5 
After the Restoration there was no such intervention with the 
suffrage. The legislation of the Cavalier Parliament was 
directed against the holding of office by dissenters in the 
national government or in the municipalities, but it did not 



1 In the boroughs where the right of suffrage was dependent upon 
the holding of certain ancient lands or lots, called therefore burgage- 
boroughs, women who held such land were permitted to transfer the 
right to vote in virtue thereof to their husbands, sons, sons-in-law, or 
their nephews (Porritt, I, 40, 223) ; and in freeman boroughs, where 
the freemanship was conferred by marriage with a freeman's daughter, 
such marriageable females were much in demand (ibid., 78-80). See 
also History of Richmond in County of York (anon., 1814), 138. 

2 5 Day's Reports, 333, quoted by Baldwin, New Haven Hist. Soc. 
Papers, V, 196. Except in the case of peers, who were privileged to 
select proxies to vote for them in the House of Lords (Blackstone, 
I, 168). At a very early period proxies may have been permitted (Cox, 
Antient Parliamentary Elections, 109). 

3 See post, 131, 156, 157. 

4 As the foreigner possessed few civil rights even in England at 
common law, so he could exercise no political rights while out of 
allegiance to the king. Even naturalized persons could not serve as 
members of the House of Commons until 1870 (33 and 34 Vict., 
chap. 13). 

B Instrument of Government, sects, xiv-xviii. 



4 TJu \ckue in the English Colonics. 

I general restriction upon the suffrage. 1 The 
however, brought a more general and 
more permanent qualification upon electors. By a statute 
of 1696 1 the sheriffs or officers of election for members of 
rliament were required, upon the request of any candi- 
date, to administer certain oaths to electors, and no person 
take the oaths could vote " for the Election of 
-ht of the Shire Citizen Burgesse or Baron of the 
[ue Ports i" serve in Parliament." The enforcement of 
this provision, 1 later amended 4 and extended to parliamen- 
tary elections in Scotland, 5 while not excluding Catholics 
by name, must necessarily have cut out many of them from 
parliamentary elections, especially those who had Jacobite 
sympathies. 6 

These qualifications, — age, sex, attendance upon election, 

'The "Five-Mile Act," 17 Chas. II, ch. 2, practically excluded all 
rating preachers from voting for members of Parliament in bor- 
oughs; but it did not extend to all dissenters, nor, presumably, did it 
exclude these preachers from voting in the counties. 
7 7 and 8 Win. Ill, ch. 27, sect, xviii. 
'The oaths are as follows: 

"I A B doe sincerely Promise and Sweare That I will be 
Faithfull and beare true Allegiance to Their Majestyes King 
William and Queene Mary. Soe helpe me God &c. 

" I A B doe Sweare That I doe from my Heart Abhor 
Detest and Abjure as Impious and Hereticall that Damnable 
Doctrine and Position That Princes Excommunicated or De- 
prived by the Pope or any Authoritie of the See of Rome 
may be Deposed or Murthered by their Subjects or any other 
whatsoever. 

" And I doe Declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person 
Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Juris- 
diction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Eccle- 
siasticall or Spirituall within this Realme. Soe helpe me 
I &c." (1 Wm. and M, ch. 8). 
'6 Ann., ch. 23. 

• I. St. 2, ch. 13, sect. 4. 

1 Catholics were, of course, excluded in a more definite way from 

ng in the House of Commons by reason of the denial of belief in 

trmnsubstantiation taken by all members of the House. It is probable 

thll ' during the eighteenth century abstained from political 

activities (Amherst, History of Catholic Emancipation, I, 78-80). 



Parliamentary Suffrage in England. 5 

native or naturalized citizenship, and the taking of certain 
oaths, — were the general restrictions imposed upon all elect- 
ors in England during the colonial epoch. In addition to 
these, however, there were numerous local or special quali- 
fications which made the suffrage in England a most un- 
systematic political practice. These can best be appreciated 
by separating the uniform suffrage for county members 
from the heterogeneous qualifications required of electors in 
the boroughs. 

A. THE COUNTY FRANCHISE. 

During the first two hundred years of the history of 
parliamentary representation, it seems probable that the 
knights of the shires were elected by all the free men of the 
respective counties. 1 Not freeholders alone, but persons of 
lower standing took part in the elections during the thir- 
teenth, fourteenth, and early part of the fifteenth centuries. 
In 1430, however, Parliament restricted this wide franchise. 2 
The reasons for so doing are set forth in the preamble of 
the statute : 

" Whereas the Elections of Knights of Shires to come to the Par- 
liament of our Lord the King in many Counties of the Realm of 
England have now of late been made by very great outrageous and 
excessive Number of People dwelling within the same Counties of the 
Realm of England, of the which most Part was of People of small 
Substance and of no Value whereof every of them pretended a Voice 
equivalent as to such Elections to be made, with the most worthy 
Knights and Esquires dwelling within the same Counties, whereby 
Manslaughters Riots Batteries and Divisions among the Gentlemen 
and other People of the same Counties, shall very likely rise and be, 
unless some convenient and due Remedy be provided in this Behalf." 

Whereupon it was enacted, 

" That the Knights of the Shires to be chosen within the same Realm 
of England, to come to the Parliaments of our Lord the King, here- 
after to be holden, shall be chosen in every County of the Realm of 
England by People dwelling and resident in the same Counties, whereof 
every one of them shall have free Land or Tenement to the Value of 
Forty Shillings by the Year at the least above all Charges." 

1 H. Cox, Antient Parliamentary Elections, 64-86 passim; 103-108, 
124 ; Grego, History of Parliamentary Elections, 7. 

2 8 Hen. VI, ch. 7. 



Franchise in the English Colonies. 

Tin having the greatest number of such " choosers" 

In their favor were tu be the knights for the county; and 

sheriffs were impowered " to examine upon the Evangelists" 

determine if he possessed the required quali- 

tfon. 

In spite of the great changes in the value of the shilling; 
in spite of the growth of the copyhold and other tenures 
than the freehold; in spite of the difficulty of determining 
the value of a freehold under the law, and in spite of the 
indefinite meaning of the word freehold itself; despite all 
these farts, English conservatism retained the forty shilling 
freehold as the exclusive qualification of county voters, for 
•ir hundred years, and as an alternative to other 
qualifications it is still a part of the English elective system. 

It will be noticed from the above excerpt that the voter 
required to reside within the county. A similar pro- 
vision had been enacted some years before the property 
requirement was adopted; 1 and it was continued in subse- 
quent statutes. 2 In spite of the statutory provision, how- 
ever, by the time of American colonization, the opposite 
practice had been adopted ; the freeholder was no longer 
required to be a resident of the county where his freehold 
lav and where he voted ; but he could vote in several counties 
if he possessed the necessary freehold in each. The process 
by which this change had come about is not very clear, but 
the right of non-residents to vote was well-established in 
the seventeenth century; 3 and, in 1774, when the early resi- 
dence acts had been found " by long usage to be unneces- 
sary" and obsolete, they were formally repealed. 4 A poll in 
Northampton County in 1730 showing a proportion of about 
Q per cent, of " outvoters," or non-residents, 5 gives an 

1 1 Henry V, ch. 1. 

* A convenient work upon elections is A Collection of the Statutes 
Now in Force Relative to Elections down to the Present Time, R. 

•rd, London, 1790. 
5 Porritt, House of Commons, I, 24; A. Kelly, An Essay on the 
Franchise, 25. 

* 14 Geo. Ill, ch. 58. 

* See Copies of the Polls taken at the Several Elections for Members 

present the County of Northampton in Parliament in the Years 



Parliamentary Suffrage in England. y 

idea of the extent to which non-residents voted in the county 
elections. 

Throughout the eighteenth century, while no change was 
made in the forty-shilling freehold, yet there was abundant 
parliamentary legislation relating to the conduct of elections. 
Some of these acts, particularly those of 1696, 1 and 171 1, 2 
exercised a wide influence upon the machinery of elections in 
the colonies, and their provisions were sometimes copied 
verbatim into the colonial election laws. For convenience 
of comparison with the American legislation, a few of the 
terms of these acts may be mentioned in this connection. 
In 1696, to prevent " charge and expense" in elections, 
various forms of bribery were forbidden. 3 In the same year 
a comprehensive election act was passed to abolish the evil 
practices which had " greatly injured and abused" the right 
of election. 4 The method of issuing and returning election 
writs and precepts was fixed ; the place of election was to be 
the most public and usual place of meeting of the county 
court for the last forty years ; in case the election could not 
be determined " upon the View with the Consent of the 
Freeholders there present," a poll was to be taken by the 
sheriff and clerks, who were sworn to " truely and indif- 
ferently" take down the names of each freeholder, the place 
of his freehold, and the persons for whom he voted. Voters 
could be required to swear or affirm that they possessed a 
freehold of the yearly value of forty shillings ; and the poll 
should be continued from day to day until all the freeholders 
had been polled. Trustees and mortgagees were not to be 

1702, 1705, 1730, 1745, and 1806, Northampton, 1832, p. 79-185 passim. 
At the election of June 8, 9, 10, 1730, there were at least 288 outvoters 
out of 4171 electors. 

1 7 and 8 Wm. Ill, chs. 7 and 25. 

2 10 Ann., ch. 31 (so numbered in Statutes of the Realm, IX, 698-700, 
but in previous editions of the Statutes at Large it was ch. 23). 

8 7 and 8 Wm. Ill, ch. 7. No candidate shall " directly or indirectly 
give, present or allow, to any person or persons having voice or vote 
in such election, any money, meat, drink, entertainment, or provision, 
or make any present, gift, reward, or entertainment, or shall at any 
time hereafter, make any promise, agreement, obligation or engage- 
ment to give or allow any money, meat" etc. Elections so obtained 
were to be void. * 7 and 8 Wm. Ill, ch. 25. 



8 The Suffrage Franchise m the English Colonies. 

permit* kc by virtue of their trusts or mortgages, 

U11 K in actual possession or in receipt of the rents 

an.! of the estates. 1 Conveyances to multiply votes, 

plit and divide the interest in freeholds in order to 
qualify icveral persons for the suffrage were to be void. 2 
Another clause provided that " noe more than one single 

Hall be admitted to one and t/ie same House or Tene- 

men 

By the preamble of the act of 1711, 3 it is stated that 
'• many fraudulent and scandalous Practices have been used of 
late, to create and multiply Votes at the Election of Knights 
of the Shires ;" and it is enacted that all such conveyances, in- 
1 of being void as was provided in the former act, were 
t' 1 be good and valid against the persons making them, while 
all bonds given to defeat the purpose of the present act were 
to be void. Further, both the person making such a transfer 
and the one voting by virtue of it were to be liable to a fine 
of forty pounds apiece. Two other provisions were in the 
nature of direct additions to the old forty-shilling qualifica- 
tion. The first of these provided that no person could vote 
virtue of lands or tenements " which have not been 
charged or assessed to the publick Taxes, Church Rates, and 
Parish Duties, in such Proportion as other Lands or Tene- 
ments of Forty Shillings per Annum;" 4 thus virtually re- 

1 " Noe Person or Persons shall be allowed to have any Vote in 
Election of Members to serve in Parliament for or by reason of any 
Tru>t Estate or Mortgage unless such Trustee or Mortgagee be in 
actual possession or receipt of the Rents and Proffits of the same 
Estate, but that the Mortgager or Cestui que trust in possession shall 
and may vote for the same Estate notwithstanding such Mortgage or 
Trust." 

" And that all Conveyances of any Mesuages Lands Tenements or 
Hereditaments in any County, City, Borough, Towne Corporate, Port 
or Place in order to multiply Voices or to splitt and divide the Inter- 
any Houses or Lands among severall Persons to enable them to 
att Elections of Members to serve in Parliament are hereby 
declared to bee void and of none Effect." 
" 10 Ann., ch. 31 (23). 

* By 12 Ann., ch. 5, it was explained that this ought not to exclude 
Dl from voting who were in possession of the required amount 
td land, which legally was not taxed — such as church lands. 



Parliamentary Suffrage in England. 9 

quiring the elector to be a taxpayer as well as a freeholder. 1 
The second provision required the elector to be in receipt of 
the rents and profits of the freehold, or entitled to receive 
them for one year before an election " unless such Lands or 
Tenements came to such Person within the Time aforesaid 
by Descent, Marriage, Marriage Settlement, Devise or Pre- 
sentation to some Benefice in the Church or by Promotion to 
some Office, unto which such Freehold is affixed." 

By later legislation annuities and rent-charges must have 
been registered with the clerk of the peace twelve months 
before the date of the election; 2 and in 1757 it was pro- 
vided that no person could be qualified to vote for knights 
of the shires by virtue of a copyhold estate. 3 

In concluding the subject of the county suffrage it may 
be mentioned that the franchise under the forty-shilling free- 
hold provision was extended in two ways. The first of these 
was by means of the splitting up of estates into parcels just 
large enough to qualify a person as an elector. Such voters 
were called " faggot" voters, and, as has been noticed, par- 
liament attempted by statute to prevent their multiplication. 
There is no question, however, that as the value of money 
declined, the forty shilling qualification became easier of 
attainment, and thus led to a wider franchise. The same 
result was reached in a second way by a broader interpreta- 
tion of the word freehold as an estate for life or greater 
dignity. What had originally been attached to real estate 
alone, now came to be applied to annuities or to rent- 
charges, or any other form of income continuing during the 
life of the holder. It was even extended to positions in the 
church or the judicial service where the tenure and income 
were for life. Thus, clergymen of the Church of England, 
the holders of lectureships, judicial officers and clerks of the 
peace, schoolmasters, and even choristers in the cathedrals 4 
voted in respect of their offices. By the increase in the num- 

x The statute only required the freehold to have been assessed for 
the taxes, they need not have been paid; but in the majority of cases 
at least tax-assessing and tax-paying would be equivalent terms. 

2 Blackstone, I, 173. 

3 31 Geo. II, ch. 14. 

4 Porritt, Unreformed House of Commons, I, 22, 23. 



io The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

ber i . and by the extension of the term freehold 

under the act of 1430 was thus gradually ex- 



l; llli: BOROUGH AND CORPORATION FRANCHISE. 

While the suffrage in the counties was based upon a single 
and uniform legal requirement, there existed in the seven- 
teenth and eighteenth centuries a bewildering variety of 

unifications for the borough and corporation suffrage 
franchise There was no law imposing a general qualifica- 
tion upon the electors in these places, but their franchise was 
fixed by local custom, by royal charters, or by the " last de- 
termination" of the House of Commons. 2 The right of 
suffrage might extend to all the householding inhabitants of 
the borough, or it might be limited solely to the score of 
officers of the corporation; it might include hundreds of 
resident and non-resident freemen, or pertain only to the 
holders of a dozen or fifty ancient land-tenures ; in some 
places it included the forty-shilling freeholders, in others the 
occupants of certain original houses, often little more than 
dilapidated hovels, in others still every potwalloper, or man 
boiling his own pot, had the right to vote. For the sake of 
clearness a short statement will be made of the suffrage under 
each of the following heads: (1) The inhabitant, and in- 
habitant-householder suffrage; (2) the potwalloper suf- 
frage; (3) the burgage tenure suffrage; (4) the freeman 
suffrage; (5) the corporation suffrage; and (6) the univer- 
sity franchise. 3 

1 . The Inhabitant and Inhabitant-Householder Franchise. 
This was the broadest borough suffrage, the most natural 

1 After the Reform Act of 1832 had added several new optional 
qualifications, it could be said that there were eighty-five avenues to 
the suffrage, most of which led to the county franchise through various 
interpretations of the term freehold (ibid.). 
I S Win. Ill, ch. 7; 2 Geo. II, ch. 24. 
*Thi> analysis is nearly identical with that used by Porritt, Unre- 
st Commons, I, chap. III. I cheerfully acknowledge my 
indebtedness to this writer for many of the following illustrations 
concerning the borough suffrage. 



Parliamentary Suffrage in England. n 

one, and that which conformed most closely to the early 
English custom. In the earliest days of borough representa- 
tion, it is probable that the suffrage included all the legal 
burgesses, and these are believed to be the householding 
inhabitants who bore a part in the taxes and other burdens of 
the community, — in other words, paid scot and lot. 1 This 
early suffrage continued to be exercised in many boroughs 
throughout the period of English history we have under con- 
sideration. During the eighteenth century there were over 
fifty boroughs in which the inhabitants, or inhabitant-house- 
holders, exercised the suffrage, either alone or in conjunction 
with other classes of voters. 2 In some cases the ancient scot 
and lot provision appears to have been lost, 3 while, on the 
other hand, in most of these boroughs, an inhabitant re- 
ceiving alms could not act as an elector. 4 There was no 
general residence requirement in these places during the 
period we are studying, and not until after the American 
Revolution was there a compulsory six months' residence 
before the election. 5 

2. The Potwalloper Franchise. This was similar to the 
inhabitant-householder franchise, except that it extended the 
right to vote to those who, not owning or renting an entire 
house, yet had a separate fireplace, or boiled the pot for 
themselves and their families. 6 Potwallers or potwallopers, 
as determined in one contested case, were " persons furnish- 
ing their own diet, whether householders or only lodgers." 7 
In such cases usually the elector must, as in the inhabitant- 
householder boroughs, be assessed for the local taxes (pay 
scot and lot) ; 8 and, generally also, those receiving alms 



1 Cox, Antient Parliamentary Elections, 165-181. 

2 Kelly, Essay on the Elective Franchise, 27-41 passim. 

3 Ibid. 

* Oldfield, History of Boroughs (ed. 1794), passim; Grego, History 
of Parliamentary Elections, 5. 

5 26 Geo. Ill, ch. 100. 

6 Wallop = ebullire, infervescere ; walling = boiling (Cox, Antient 
Parliamentary Elections, 191, note). 

7 Kelly, Elective Franchise, 33. 

8 But even this was not required in Honiton ; Porritt, I, 31. 



u The Su Franchise in the English Colonies. 

hided As in the inhabitant boroughs there was no 
general residence qualification. 1 

y The Burgage Tenure Franchise. A burgage tenure 
. defined as land or tenements lying in a borough and 
ing to the king or other lord a certain annual rental. 2 
tenures dated back hundreds of years from the seven- 
teenth century, and often formed but a small part of the 
land of a pi >pnl< »us community. Yet to them and them alone 
m many towns was the privilege of electing members of 
Parliament attached. 

In no group of boroughs did the suffrage vary more than 
it did in the burgage boroughs, and local custom here seems 
to have done its best to bring confusion into the elective 
tem. In some cases the right to vote was given to the 
holders only of the original burgages, as in Petersfield, 
w here the electors were " the freeholders of lands, or ancient 
dwelling-houses or shambles built on ancient foundations;" 3 
in other boroughs the franchise was vested in the inhabitants 
of the ancient tenures, as in Weobley, where it rested upon 
the " inhabitants of certain ancient vote-houses of twenty 
shillings per annum and upwards, residing in the houses 
days before the election and paying scot and lot, and 
also in the owners of such houses paying scot and lot and 
resident in the houses at time of election." 4 Again it might 
be the leaseholders for a certain term of years, or even, in 
two cases, the copyholders 5 of the estates, who possessed the 
right to vote. There was a similar diversity within the 
thirty-nine burgage boroughs respecting the residence of 
voters. In Cricklade and Weobley 7 a residence of forty 

1 In only three boroughs, apparently, did the potwalloper suffrage 
rest upon parliamentary determination (Tregony, Honiton, and Taun- 
ton; see Oldfield, Hill of Boroughs, I, 92, 171; II, 53) ; probably it 
ted in other places under local interpretations of the words inhabi- 
or housekeepers. 
'Coke, lust., I, 108 b, 109 a. 

' Oldfield, Boroughs, I, 297. * Ibid., 308. 

1 In the two boroughs of Westbury and Cricklade occur the only 
the suffrage based upon copyholds (Oldfield. Bor- 
oughs, II, 216, 223). 

' f'-rntt, I. 34. • Oldfield, Boroughs, I, 308. 



Parliamentary Suffrage in England. 13 

days was required of the voter; while in other places the 
vote-houses were occupied only a few days before the elec- 
tion ; 1 and in others still no residence at all was required, or 
indeed could be where, as at Droitwich, one of the burgage- 
holds was in the middle of a water course. 2 

The attachment of the suffrage to these ancient land- 
tenures led to the greatest anomalies of the English repre- 
sentative system. The case of Old Sarum has become 
famous ; in Westbury the twenty-four tenures comprised one 
long stone wall ; 3 in Calne the electors were of the same 
number, all possessing a right of common in a certain field ; 4 
in Droitwich the members of the corporation, who were the 
sole electors, must each " be seized in fee of a small quantity 
of salt water arising out of a pit." 5 The number of the 
burgage-holds was rarely over two hundred ; 6 it often was 
under fifty ; 7 and in Old Sarum there were nominally seven 
voters for the two members of Parliament. 8 

4. The Freeman Suffrage. In the common sense in which 
the word freeman was used in England during our colonial 
period, it meant that the person so called was accepted into 
some commercial or municipal corporation and therefore 
was free to exercise all the privileges and franchises of the 
corporation. In this sense the freemen or burgesses of 
sixty-two boroughs 9 possessed either the exclusive right to 
elect members of Parliament, or exercised that right in con- 
junction with other groups of electors. 10 

There were many ways in which a man could become a 
freeman of the English boroughs. He might be admitted 

1 Porritt, I, 35. 2 Ibid., 37. 

3 Oldfield, II, 216. 

4 Ibid., 218. The same requirement of participation in a common 
field is found in Richmond (ibid., II, 276). 

5 Ibid., 261 ; Porritt, I, 36. 

6 There were 330 in Pomfret (ibid., 285), 270 in Richmond (ibid., 
276). 

7 Ibid., 147, 160, 166, 192, 215, 216, 218, 281. 
s Ibid., 236. 

9 Porritt, I, 30. 

10 The former was the more common custom, but for instances of the 
latter feature see Oldfield, Boroughs, I, 5, 106, 148, 253, 319, 350, etc. 



14 frage Franchise m the English Colonics. 

l, v : and dired vote of those who were already free- 

!• he might purchase the freedom; 2 he could gain it 
in apprenticeship, usually of seven years, to a free- 
man in the borough, 1 or by serving- to a freeman of the 
iugh anywhere; 4 he could obtain it because he was the 
eman, 8 or the heir of a freeman; 6 or because he 
the eldest son, 7 or the youngest son, 8 or a son born after 
lather had obtained the freedom; 9 or because he had 
married a freeman's daughter, 10 or widow. 11 

In over half of the freeman boroughs a local attachment 
Bome form was maintained, either by the relationship 
of birth, servitude and marriage, or by the more definite 
«>ne of residence. But in more than a third of the bor- 
hs, where the freedom could be obtained by gift of the 
corporation or by purchase, even residence was not re- 
quired. 12 In these cases the freemen could dwell in any 
part of the country, and simply journey to the town whose 
freedom they possessed at the time of the election. 13 The 

I Porritt, I, 58-66 passim; Brooke, Liverpool during last Quarter of 
Eighteenth Century, 208. 

'E.g., St. Albans; Oldfield, Boroughs, I, 314; Zacke, Memorials of 
Exeter, 38, 39. 

s Ibid. ; Creighton, Carlisle, 194 ; in Coventry, see Oldfield, Boroughs, 
II, 173- 

* When the apprentice was also the younger son of a freeman ; in 
Nottingham (Oldfield, Boroughs, II, 2). 

'-Ibid., I, 120, 314, 359; II, 45, 312, 338. 

• In Exeter, Zacke, Memorials of Exeter, 39, 74. 

T In East Retford, Hastings, Rye, Richmond, etc. ; Oldfield, Bor- 
oughs, II, 8, 301-304. 333', Hist, of Richmond (anon.), 120. 

' In Durham ; Oldfield, Boroughs, I, 244. 

•In Xcwcastle-on-Tyne, London, Sudbury, etc.; ibid., I, 418, 380; II, 
122. 

"In Ludlow, Bristol, Wells (ibid., II, 39, 45, 50), Dover (Kelly, 
Elective Eranchisc, 57), etc. 

II In Sandwich (Kelly, Elective Franchise, 66). 

" The short pamphlet on the Elective Franchise by Arthur Kelly is 
a study of the residence and non-residence conditions in the English 
boroughs; see passim, especially 70, 71. 

u So many freemen of various boroughs dwelt in London that some- 
parliamentary candidates called meetings in London of the free- 
men of the respective constituencies (Porritt. I, 63). 



Parliamentary Suffrage in England. 15 

freeman must pay the local taxes of scot and lot 1 in some 
boroughs, while in others the freemanship admitted to the 
suffrage such irresponsible persons as could be brought from 
jails or work-houses. 2 In the non-resident freeman bor- 
oughs the greatest election evils existed. The travelling 
expenses of non-residents were often paid by the candidates, 
who also felt themselves under the necessity of furnishing 
refreshments to the electors; and often wholesale admis- 
sions to the freemanship were made upon the eve of an 
election. 3 

5. The Restricted Corporation Franchise. The election 
evils in the freeman boroughs usually arose by reason of the 
extension of the franchise to those who possessed no interest 
in the locality; but in a number of boroughs the right of 
electing members of Parliament had taken a different, but 
equally vicious form, — an election by a group of corporation 
officers. This right, like the status of freemen, had developed 
from the earlier inhabitant-householder franchise of the 
boroughs ; 4 and in this case it was often strengthened not 
only by local custom but by the actual grant of such powers 
in royal charters of incorporation. The municipal officers, 
also, in many places became self-perpetuating bodies, thus 
bringing them still farther away from the early liberal suf- 
frage. To the features of exclusive control of elections and 
of self-perpetuation there was often added the equally vicious 
principle of non-residence, which permitted a person to hold 
office, even the office of mayor, in a select municipal cor- 
poration without entering the borough once a year. 5 Over 
forty boroughs elected their members of Parliament in this 
manner, and the number of officers or select burgesses ac- 
tually participating might be as low as two. 6 Usually, how- 
ever, the number was about twenty-five, 7 and in a few cases 

1 01dfield, Boroughs, I, 43, 112, 234, 312, 342; II, 104, 117, 173, etc. 

2 Porritt, I, 69, 70. 

3 Ibid., 58-84 passim. 

4 Cox, Antient Parliamentary Elections, 186-190. 

6 Porritt, Unreformed House of Commons, I, 53, 54. 

6 In Castle Rising ; Oldfield, Boroughs, I, 409. 

7 Ibid., I, 25, 137, 293; II, 24, 49, 126, 264, 274. 



Franchise m the English Colonies. 

ft n almost fifty. In the town of Bath, at the 

teenth century, twenty-two municipal officers 
ted the two members to represent themselves and the 
thirty thousand inhabitants of the borough. 

,/y Suffrage. The charters of James I 
(1603) conferred the right of election of members of 
parliament upon the chancellor, masters and scholars of 
university. 1 L'nder the terms of these charters, the 
tions became limited to the "senates" of the two uni- 
. — that is, to those who were masters of arts, or 
doctors in one of the three faculties of divinity, civil law, or 
physic, and who retained a connection by residence or other- 
wise with some college of the university. 2 

The suffrage for university members is interesting because 
it furnishes the only instance, so far as the writer knows, 
of the use of the ballot in parliamentary elections before the 
nineteenth century. The written ballot or " scrutiny" ap- 
pears to have been used at an early date in the elections for 
university officers ; 3 later it was applied to the elections of 
members of Parliament; and in 1780, it was even held up 
as a grievance 4 by a group of reformers at Cambridge. In 
the university elections no other qualifications were re- 
quired other than those set by the statutes of the univer- 
sity respecting membership in the university senate. 

1 The words of the charter of Cambridge are " Praedicti Cancellarius 
Magistri et Scholares Universitatis Cantebrigise, et Successores sui, 
Virtute Praecepti, Mandati. seu Processus super Breve nostri, Hsere- 
dum et Successorum nostrorum in ea Parte debite directi, habeant et 
habeunt Potestatem, Auctoritatem, et Facultatem eligendi et nominandi 
duos de discretioribus et magis sufficientibus viris de praedicta Univer- 
sitate pro tempore existentibus fore Burgenses Parliaments (Dyer, 
Privileges of Cambridge, 135, 136). 

1 For further details see the calendars of the universities. 

'Mullinger, op. cit., 112; Present State of the Universities (London, 
1744}. I. Oxford, 284, 288, 419. The ballots were burnt after the 
result was determined (ibid.; Cox, Recollections of Oxford, 66). The 
term scrutiny in canon law meant a written ballot. 

* Porritt T. 102. 



CHAPTER II. 
The Suffrage in Virginia. 

The first twelve years of Virginia's history present few 
facts on the American side of the Atlantic for the student 
of political institutions. The early life of the colonists was 
an intense physical struggle for existence in which no gen- 
eral political consciousness is apparent. The terrible con- 
tests with the fevers of the river valley, the struggle against 
the ever-impending famine, the horrors of Indian warfare, 
and the animosities of domestic quarrels together left scant 
opportunity for political action; while the arbitrary powers 
granted by the English authorities to the governors and 
councillors repressed any movement towards popular gov- 
ernment which might have arisen. The personal and epic 
interests are aroused by the facts of this period, but there 
is practically no institutional development. 

For this development of institutions the student must look 
at the Virginia Company of London and the royal charters 
of 1606, 1609, 1 612. The first charter left the control of 
the colony largely in the hands of the king or his ap- 
pointees; the second charter shifted the responsibility upon 
the council of the company; and the third one gave large 
powers to the democratic general court of the Virginia Com- 
pany. Under the last charter quarterly meetings of all the 
stockholders could be held for the consideration of company 
affairs, the election of officers, the making of laws for the 
colony, the hearing of complaints from the colony, and the 
admission of new members. When it is remembered that 
there were six hundred and fifty- four stockholders in 1609, 
and that others were added from time to time, it will be 
seen that these meetings of the Virginia Company were 
truthfully spoken of as a " seminary to a seditious parlia- 
ment." 1 

A large party in the newly organized company of 161 2 

1 Cooke, Virginia, 114. 



18 Franchise in the English Colonies. 

mooted of Puritans, and this faction gradually in- 
ised in power in the succeeding years. They introduced 
die democratic ballot-box in place of viva-voce voting in 
their company; ' and at last they elected as chief officer of 
the company (" treasurer"), Sir Edwin Sandys, who, al- 
though an attendant of the established church, was the firm 
.1 ut" the Puritans. The election of Sandys was the 
culmination of a struggle between the faction favoring arbi- 
trary control and those of the company who desired a more 
popular form of government in the colony. Sandys him- 
s known to favor the erection "of a free state in 
Virginia :" - and while he held the office of assistant treas- 
urer, a " great charter of privileges" was ratified at a quarter 
court of the company and dispatched to the colony for the 
guidance of the governor and council in Virginia. 3 In this 
charter there is found the origin of the first representative 
government in America. 

While these changes had been accomplished in the organi- 
zation of the London Company, affairs in the colony had 
become more settled and its permanence was now assured. 
The improved economic condition of the colony in 1619 
made the new popular policy of the Puritan stockholders of 
London almost a necessity, and contributed largely to its 
Miccess. The instructions of 1606 to the first councillors of 
the colony gave authority to the councillors and president 
" govern, rule, and command all the captains and sol- 
diers, and all other of his Majesty's subjects of his colony," 
irding to the terms of the king's instructions. 4 For 
three years after the landing in May, 1607, the colony did 
not possess even a definite code of laws, but was governed 
by the councillors, or the strongest one among them. One 
of these councillors apparently intended to call a ''parlia- 
ment" of the colonists, but was prevented from doing so 
by the arrival of new instructions. 5 This is the period of 

1 Ncill, Virginia Company of London, 189, 204. Brown, First Re- 
public m America, 305, 307. 
"Brown, First Republic, 251. 
'November 28, [618, Brown. First Republic, 293. 

* Neill. Virginia Company of London, 4-8. 

* According to Wingfield, in Brown. First Republic, 55. 



The Suffrage in Virginia. 19 

quarrels among the councillors and the final election of John 
Smith, or, — shall we say, — his assumption of control. 
After the lifting of Smith's strong hand, more quarrels of 
the councillors took place; until at last the arrival of Gov- 
ernor Delaware with his broad personal powers in govern- 
ment x put an end to the council jealousies. 

The colony now entered upon the second stage of its 
political history. The first had been the troublous times 
under a plural executive; the new era saw the governor a 
petty despot in the colony, bringing order out of confusion, 
repressing factions by retaining the government in his own 
hands, but yet ruling according to known laws. Up to 1610 
the colony had possessed no legal code, even of a criminal 
nature, except the occasional instructions given to the coun- 
cillors. For three years the colonists had been compelled to 
conform to the whim or will of the councillors. From 1610 
to 1 6 19 the governors and the councils appointed by them 
had arbitrary power, but this was used, in general, according 
to published regulations. 2 Within this period of nine years 
the colony prospered, increased in population, and at last 
the colonists solved the economic problem of making the 
vast natural resources of Virginia meet the needs of Euro- 
peans. 

At this point, when the economic life was broadening, and 
when it would soon have come into conflict with the arbi- 
trary powers of the governor, the colony received from Lon- 
don the instructions for the holding of a representative 
assembly. The Virginia Company of London held one of 
its quarterly courts or meetings on November 28, 161 8, and 
agreed upon the following measures : 

" I. The great charter of privileges, orders, and Laws, which had 
been previously drafted, and considered, was ratified, signed, and 
directed to the Governor and the Council of Estate in Virginia." 

1 See Lord De la Warr's commission in Brown, Genesis of United 
States, I, 375 ff- 

a See Laws of Gates, Delaware, and Dale in Force's Tracts, III, No. a. 
There are twenty-four capital crimes according to these laws, some 
religious rules, and some sanitary measures; but no constitutional pro- 
visions whatever. 



The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

for establishing the Council of Estate and the 
gene: !>ly (two Burgesses out of every Plantation), wherein' 

their dntSei wire described to the life." 

"III. Sundry inductions" for governor, council, and colony. 

Thus through the action of the radical members of the 
Virginia Company the foundation was laid for popular gov- 
ernment in the colony. 

It is generally believed that the privileges and orders of 
joiS were similar to those given to Governor Wyatt in 
k.ji. 1 The latter document is called " An Ordinance and 
Constitution of the Treasurer, Council, and Company in 
England, for a Council of State and General Assembly," 2 
and in it the Company authorities expressed their intention of 
establishing a form of government in the colony which would 
be of the " greatest benefit and comfort" to the people, and 
would keep " off as much as possible" all " injustice, griev- 
ances, and oppression." It provided also for a general as- 
sembly composed of the council of state and " two burgesses 
out of every town, hundred, or other particular plantation, 
to be respectively chosen by the inhabitants." 

Governor Yeardley, with the instructions for an assembly, 
arrived in the colony early in 1619, and shortly afterwards 
issued a proclamation announcing that the services due to 
the company would be remitted to all persons who had come 
before April, 16 16, that the former cruel laws had been 
abrogated, and that a share in government was to be given 
to the colonists. 3 He said, 

*' And that they might have a hand in the governing of themselves, it 
was granted that a General Assembly should be held yearly once, 
whereat were to be present the Governor and Counsell, with two Bur- 
gesses from each Plantation freely to be elected by the inhabitants 
thereof ; this Assembly to have power to make and ordaine whatsoever 
I and orders should by them be thought good and proffittable for 
our subsistence." 

1 Brown, First Republic, 293. Brown even thinks that similar instruc- 
tions were given to Governor Delaware. 

* Hening, Statutes at Large of Virginia, I, 110-113. 

* Brown, First Republic, 312. 



The Suffrage in Virginia. 21 

In accordance with the terms of this proclamation the 
famous first representative assembly met in the church at 
Jamestown. The facts concerning this assembly have been 
told so frequently and so well that it would be presumption 
to repeat them here. We are, however, interested in the 
suffrage for this assembly, and can but regret that the details 
concerning the election are so meagre. The governor's proc- 
lamation had declared all " inhabitants" to be electors, but 
there is no certainty of meaning attaching to the word. 
Brown in one place makes inhabitants synonymous with 
" planters," while in another case he says that suffrage 
" was general." 1 Another writer holds that " all the set- 
tlers had a voice in public affairs, first in the daily matters 
of the hundreds, and after 161 9 in electing burgesses." 2 
I have found no contemporary description of the voting 
class other than the word inhabitants, or the still more vague 
statement that burgesses were elected " by the major part 
of voices ;" 3 but from later legislation it seems apparent 
that all free men not bound to service had the right to vote. 
For, when the assembly in 1646 levied a fine upon freemen 
who did not vote, they thought it necessary to state that this 
fine should not be collected from freemen who were cov- 
enanted servants, thus extending compulsory voting tl rough- 
out the whole class of free laborers and planters. 4 \nother 
later act was based upon the principle of the union of tax- 
paying and political rights ; 5 but it is unlikely that such a 
definite theory was held in the time of the first assembly. 
It seems true that all men not bound to service were privi- 
leged to vote in the first and subsequent early elections. 

As we are in doubt concerning the persons who held the 

1 Brown, First Republic, 616, 315. 

8 Cooke, Virginia, 223. 

8 This phrase was applied to the election of 1624, Brown, First Re- 
public, 570. Rolfe in his account merely said that burgesses were 
" chosen in all places;" and the journal of the assembly said "two Bur- 
gesses elected out of each Incorporation and Plantation;" N. Y. Hist. 
Soc. Coll., Second Series, III, 332, 335. 

4 Chapter XX, 1646, Hening, I, 333-4. 

6 Ch. XVI of March, 1655-6, Hening, I, 403. Discussed more fully in 
the following pages. 



The Suffrage Franchise m the English Colonies. 

franchise in these early days, so the manner of voting is 
l»\ no means clear. Brown quotes the Virginia Company 
requiring the " principal! officers in Va. To be 
chosen by balloting box;" ' but it is not believed that this 
formal method was used / r wa voce voting is implied in the 
phrase "major part of voices," used in 1624, and by the 
writs requiring personal attendance at the elections. 2 On 
the other hand, it is plain that some form of proxies, or 
bscribing of hands," was used, and sometimes this was 
so general that " it happeneth that few or none doe appeare 
•nally according to the summons." 3 In what form 
this " handwriting" was produced is not stated. It might 
have been gained by candidates or their friends as signa- 
tures to papers; it may have been in the form of proxies, 
as in the neighboring colony of Maryland; the names may 
have been taken by the sheriff as he went from settlement 
to settlement giving the legal warning of the election at 
each house; or the votes may have been in the form of indi- 
vidual ballots. The custom, in whatever form, probably was 
furthered by the act of 1639-40, which said, " No sheriff 
to compel 1 any man to go off the plantation where he lives 
to choose burgisses ;" 4 for, since several plantations made 
up a county, 5 the sheriff would be obliged to adopt some 
proxy system or other method of collecting the votes from 
the different plantations. 

After the first assembly, almost ten years passed before the 
representative system was permanently adopted. Governor 
Wyatt, who succeeded Yeardley, kept up the assembly sys- 
tem; at first issuing regular writs according to the com- 
pany's instructions, and later, after the Virginia Company's 

1 First Republic, 315. It is more likely that this requirement related 
to the election of colony officers by the Company in its London meetings. 

: Hcning, I, 333. 

1 Ibid. 

* Ibid., 227. 

" Counties were erected and became the formal unit of representation 
in 1634. But the burgesses from a county may have continued to be 
elected by the plantations within the county instead of by the county 
at large. There can be no doubt this was true of some parishes; 
Hening, I, 154, 250, 277. 



The Suffrage in Virginia. 23 

charter had been forfeited, he discussed public affairs in 
meetings of " The Governor, Council, and Colony of Vir- 
ginia assembled together." * In spite of petitions from the 
people praying that no military government be established 
over them, 2 and in spite of Governor Yeardley's request that 
he be allowed to call an assembly and have officers elected 
by the people, 3 neither King James in 1624, nor Charles in 
his first commission for the government of Virginia, granted 
any popular political features. 4 But the colonists petitioned 
against the tobacco monopoly Charles had granted, and in 
the fall of 1627 Charles sent out instructions for the election 
of assemblymen in the colony. In accordance with this 
permission the first assembly under royal authority was held 
in March, 1627-8, 5 and thereafter the representative system 
was to continue with slight interruptions until the revolution 
of 1776. 

The next interesting fact concerning the suffrage is the 
attempt of the people to extend the elective principle from 
the choice of the legislature to the choice of their executive 
officer. It was not an unusual thing in the colonies for a 
small settlement of Englishmen to choose a governor. Such 
action is seen quite frequently in the New England settle- 
ments ; in West Jersey there is a succession of elected execu- 
tives ; on Long Island occurred the short and strange career 
of President John Scott; in Maryland and the Carolinas 
other instances can be found; while in Virginia itself the 
assumption of power by John Smith in 1608 was, in fact, a 
popular choice of the most powerful of the councillors. In 
1635 tms popular choice is seen, when the people " thrust 
out" an obnoxious English governor, John Harvey, and put 



1 Brown, First Republic, 647. For these early assemblies, see Hening, 
I, 1 19-136; Neill, Virginia Company, 274-5; Brown, First Republic, 
458, 647, 648; Neill, Virginia Carolorum, 55. 

2 Ibid., 573. 

3 Neill, Va. Carolorum, 27. 

* See the Commissions in Hazard, Historical Collections, I, 183-205, 
230-234. 

5 Neill, Va. Carolorum, 55; Brown, First Republic, 648; Hening, I, 
134-136. 



24 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

in his place one Captain John West. West, in explaining 
Ins election to the English government, said, 

The COtmMU with one consent were so pleased as to fasten their 
00 met to w ch the peoples suffrages as willingly condiscended ;" ' 

It is not likely that the election of West was a formal matter 
on the part of the people. Previous meetings of discontented 
•n s had been held,- and it is probable that after the 
council had selected Captain West the choice was submitted 
to the burgesses and the people present for ratification. It 
is scarcely necessary to say that Charles I. would suffer no 
such assumption of " regal power," as he termed the action 
of the colonists; Harvey must be sent back, if only for a 
day, to maintain the royal authority. 3 While there was no 
choice for the Virginians but to accept the governor, yet 
fortunately for them his new administration lasted only a 
short time. 

During the first twenty years there was no permanent 
unit of representation. Up to 1634 the country was divided 
into plantations, 4 and each of these was originally entitled 
to send two representatives; but later some of the planta- 
tions were grouped into hundreds, and from one to four 
burgesses came from each hundred or plantation or " cor- 
poration." 5 In 1634 the colony was divided into eight 

1 Neill, Virginia Carolorum, 129; see also, ibid., 116-133; Hening, 
I, 223; Va. Mag. of History, III, 21-34; VIII, 147 ff> 398 ff. 

'Neill, Va. Carolorum, 119. De Vries, who stopped in Virginia in 
May, 1635, said a new governor had been made by the council and 
people. 

* Neill, Virginia Carolorum, 126. 

4 A plantation was generally a settlement made by servants or free 
laborers under the direction of some one person who had received a 
large land grant. Under such circumstances the elections must have 
been in the control of the local proprietor ; and in the first assembly 
the burgesses from one plantation were called Mr. Martin's burgesses 
(A r . Y. Hist. Soc. Coll., 2d Ser., Ill, 338, 344). 

s The list of burgesses to the assembly of February, 1632-3, shows this 
irregularity; Hening, I, 202-3. See also Chandler, Representation in 
Virginia, J. H. U. Studies, XIV, Nos. 6-7, 6-14. 



The Suffrage in Virginia. 25 

counties, 1 which were made the new units of representation ; 
yet for many years after this time the burgesses are spoken 
of as coming from the several plantations. 2 No definite 
number was at first given to each county, but the actual 
representation varied from one to eight burgesses for a 
county; and the total number of burgesses in the assem- 
blies meeting between the years 1634 to 1662 varied from 
eighteen to forty-four, the number of counties meanwhile 
growing from eight to eighteen. Later legislation fixed the 
number of burgesses for each county at four, 3 and still later 
it was reduced to two. 4 

It is not believed that the early county burgesses were 
always elected at large, but that in some counties they con- 
tinued for a time to be elected by the plantations or par- 
ishes. The act of 1639-40 forbidding sheriffs to compel 
any man to go off his plantation to choose burgesses has 
already been quoted, but the exact meaning of the act is 
obscure. 5 As early as February, 163 1-2, parishes are men- 
tioned as a representative unit ; 6 and later, when some of 
the counties were divided into parishes, each parish was 
permitted to choose a burgess or burgesses within its own 
limits. 7 Until 1662 it was permissible for any parish to 
send its own burgesses if it desired to do so, although after 
1656 the wages of such " parochial" burgesses were to be 

1 Hening, I, 224 ; Brown, English Politics in Early Virginia History, 
100. 

2 Hening, I, 239, 282, 298, 373, 379, 527. 

3 Hening, I, 299-300, act of Nov., 1645. James City County was per- 
mitted to elect five burgesses for the county and one for the city. 

4 Hening, II, 20, 106; acts of 1660-1, 1661-2. See also act of 1669 
making the sending of two burgesses compulsory; and that of 1670 
laying a fine of 10,000 pounds of tobacco upon counties refusing to 
elect (Hening, II, 272, 282). 

5 Hening, I, 227. Hening found only abstracts of the laws of this 
session. 

6 Hening, I, 153, 179. 

7 Hening, I, 249, 250, 251, 277. I have not found the original act giving 
general power to all parishes to choose burgesses; but the preamble 
of an act of 1656 says that "by a former act of Assembly priviledge 
was granted to any parish to send one or two Burgesses." Hening, 
I, 421. 



26 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

paid by the parishes electing them. 1 The vestry of the 
parish had the power of determining if parochial burgesses 
should be elected, and. when requested, the sheriff of the 
county ipdled by law to attend such parish elec- 

tions. 1 While parish burgesses were thus permitted, — and 
no doubt in many cases were elected, — they were chosen for 
the '"particular occasion" of the parish, 3 and the county 
: only for the usual number of burgesses as formerly. 4 
It may be that the distinction between parish and county 
burgesses is only another expression for our modern ideas 
of election by general ticket and by districts. James City 
(Jamestown) received the right to send one burgess in 
1045."' and continued to exercise this privilege until the 
Revolution. The promise was also made in 1662 that 
every county which would lay out a town of one hundred 
acres and people it with one hundred tithable persons should 
have the right to another representative. 6 

Returning now to our main topic of the suffrage, it is 
noteworthy that a quarter of a century elapsed after the 
assembly of 16 19 before a single important act was passed 
bearing upon the suffrage. The subject came up in 1646, 
owing to the inconveniences which were occasioned " by dis- 
orderly and illegal election of Burgesses, by subscribing of 
hands contrary to the warrant." 7 The act then forbade 
the use of handwriting, and imposed a fine upon those who 
did not appear to vote. It was ordered 

" That noe election shall be made of any Burgesse or Burgesses but 
by a plurality of voices and that no hand writing shall be admitted: 
Be it alsoe further inacted, That what freeman soever haveing lawful 
sumons of the time and place for election of Burgesses that shall not 
make repaire accordingly, Such person or persons vnless there be law- 
full cause for the absenting himselfe shall forfeit 100 lb. of tob'o. for 
his non-appearance ffreemen being covennt. servants being exempted 

Honing, I, 421. 
Hening, I. 530, 545. 
Hcning, I. 421. 

300. 
Hcning, II, 106. 
Hcning. I, 333-4. 



The Suffrage in Virginia. 27 

from the said fine to be levyed by distresse in case of refusall and is to 
be disposed of towards the defraying of the Burgesses charges in the 
county." 

Thus, under a penalty of a fine of one hundred pounds of 
tobacco, compulsory viva voce voting was imposed upon all 
freemen who were not covenanted servants. The act shows 
clearly that manhood suffrage was the rule in early Vir- 
ginia as it was in early Maryland. — ■ 

The next suffrage question arises out of the civil war in 
England. Berkeley and the Virginians had shown their 
loyalty to the Stuart family, and in September, 1651, the 
English Council of State appointed four commissioners to 
reduce the plantations along Chesapeake Bay. 1 The instruc- 
tions of the commissioners directed them to offer a general 
pardon, and to permit the election of burgesses by " those 
taking the oath to be true and faithful to the Commonwealth 
of England, without a King or House of Lords." 2 On 
March 12, 165 1-2, the governor, council, and assembly sur- 
rendered the government on favorable terms to the commis- 
sioners. 3 The inhabitants were offered the new oath to 
Parliament, and a few weeks after the surrender elections 
were held for assemblymen. 4 The oath was widely taken; 
in Northumberland County alone one hundred and seventy- 
five persons subscribing to it, and the first assembly under 
the commonwealth was, with one exception, the largest 
which had met since 1632. For the next nine years the 
assembly of the colony was practically supreme, not only 
performing acts of legislation, but electing the governors 
and other general and county officers. 5 They exercised the 
powers of the Long Parliament of England without the 
monarchical restraint of a Cromwell. 

During the Commonwealth period an attempt was made 
to change the existing broad basis of the suffrage. An act 

1 McMahon, Hist of Maryland, 204. 

2 Neill, Virginia Carolorum, 218. For exact words of oath, see ibid., 
221, note 2. The same form of oath was administered in Maryland. 

3 Hening, I, 363-368; Neill, Virginia Carolorum, 221-224. 

4 Neill, Virginia Carolorum, 224. 

6 Hening, I, 358-9, note ; 369, note ; 371-2. 



28 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

of March. [654 5. limited the suffrage to housekeepers, and 
allowed DO more than one voter in each family. 1 It pro- 
vided 

hal all housekeepers whether freeholders, lease holders, or other- 
tenants, shall onely be capeable to elect Burgesses, and none 
hereby made vncapable shall give his subscription to elect a Burgesse 
vpon the pennalty of four hundred pounds of tobacco and cask to be 
disposed of bj the court of each county where such contempt shall be 
vsed : Provided that this word housekeepers repeated in this act extend 
no further then to one person in a family." 

Perhaps growing out of the experience of the last few years 2 
the burgesses were now required to be " persons of knowne 
integrity and of good conversation, and of the age of one 
& twenty years." ■ It was made the sheriff's duty, by him- 
self or deputy, to go from house to house and warn all per- 
sons interested in elections of the time and place of choosing 
burgesses; and the viva voce provision of the act of 1646, 
whereby the burgesses were elected by the " plurality of 
voices," was now changed to an election " by subscription 
and of the major part of the hands of the electors." 

The limitation of the suffrage to housekeepers did not 
long continue. The next legislature, adopting to the full 
the English ideas of taxation and representation, in March, 
1655-6, declared that " we conceive it something hard and 
vnagreeable to reason that any persons shall pay equall 
taxes and yet have no votes in election." 4 They therefore 
repealed that part of the earlier act which " excludes freemen 
from voters," but they required the voters to " fairly give 

1 Hening, I, 411-412. 

1 In 1652 two persons were ejected from the house, one for scandalous 
libel, and the other for mutinous declarations. A minister was also 
excluded from the assembly in the following year, and the subscribers 
to a certain mutinous paper were forbidden to hold office. Hening, I, 
374, 3/8, 380. 

•This clause is drawn literally from Article XVII of the English 
Instrument of Government of 1653. 

'Hening, I. 403 In 1659 tithables were all white male servants of 
any age imported into the colony, all imported negroes, male or female, 
all Indian servants over sixteen years of age, and all Christian (white) 
males over sixteen. 



The Suffrage in Virginia. 29 

their votes by subscription and not in a tumultuous way." 
The policy of manhood suffrage was expressed still more 
definitely by the assembly in March, 1657-8, when they per- 
mitted " all persons inhabiting in this collonie that are free- 
men to have their votes in the election of Burgesses." 1 It 
need scarcely be remarked that the word freemen as used 
here means free man, and has no connotation of membership 
in corporations such as it contains in the northern colonies. 
This was manhood suffrage extending to all adult males 
who were not slaves or indentured servants; and all the 
voters, too, were taxpayers, for the poll-tax was levied upon 
all males over sixteen years of age. 

By the speedy repeal of the limiting act the commonwealth 
government in Virginia showed its regard for universal 
suffrage. During these years the government of Virginia 
was practically a republic, with the legislature exercising 
supreme power. Yet after electing three governors, the 
assembly took the strange step of electing a council of state 
for life, and providing for the election of the governor from 
among the life councillors ; 2 but, fortunately, the council 
refused to accept the honor, and the next assembly passed an 
act " for the annihilation of councillors." 3 At the same 
time they declared that the " supreme power of the govern- 
ment" was resident in the assembly, and in their second act 
elected Sir William Berkeley as governor. 4 

After the restoration of Charles II. there was no imme- 
diate change in the government. Berkeley was accepted as 
royal governor and was directed by his instructions to call 
assemblies according to the usages of the colony. 5 These 
instructions were carried out to the letter, and elections and 
the suffrage were practically unchanged; indeed it may be 
said that popular suffrage scarcely existed until 1676, for 
fifteen years passed without an election of assemblymen. 

1 Herring, I, 475. 

2 Herring, I, 517; March, 1658-9. The new organization of the coun- 
cil was very likely suggested by that of the English Council of State. 

3 Hening, I, 537. 

4 Hening, I, 530. 

5 Dated September 12, 1662 ; Hazard, Historical Collections, II, 607- 
611; Virginia Historical Magazine, III, 15. 



Franchise m the English Colonies. 

Berkeley's " long parliament" in Virginia almost equalled 
in duration its English namesake. Some minor changes in 
count v representation and the abolition of the parochial 
es made in 1 66 1 and 1 662 have already been men- 
tioned. 1 The fear that some candidates for the assembly 
might promise to serve for low wages led the assembly in 
1 and [662 to fix a regular daily allowance of one hun- 
dred and fifty pounds of tobacco for each member, in order 
that •* diverse heart burnings" might be allayed, and in- 
terested persons might not " purchase votes by offering to 
undertake the place at low rates and by that means make 
the place both mercenary and contemptible." 2 

The subjects of taxation and the suffrage appear to have 
been mingled in an attempt made in 1663 to abolish the 
poll-tax, but the exact form of the contest is not clear. 
Burk :: thinks that there was an effort to change the basis 
of taxation to property and at the same time limit the suf- 
frage to freeholders. If this were the aim of a party in the 
assembly, it met with no immediate success. 

In 1670, however, a decided change from universal suf- 
frage was made, and the first step taken towards elections 
by a definite propertied class. The preamble of the act of 
October, 1670, 4 shows the fear universal suffrage would 
bring certain evils into the elective system, and that this belief 
had worked a change in the opinions of the assembly since 
the days when it was held that tax-paying and political privi- 
leges should go hand in hand. It is probable, too, that a 
change in the personnel of the assembly had taken place, and 
that the wealthier planters had more weight now than in 
the commonwealth period ; while the emigrant cavaliers who 
had fled to Virginia during the Cromwellian rule were now 
directly influencing politics. 5 The reasons for the passage 

1 Ante, p 

* Hening, II, 23. In the year 1663 a burgess who was charged with 
sympathy for the Quakers and opposition to the baptism of children 

ii^missed from the assembly when he refused to take the oaths of 
allegiance and supremacy (Hening, II, 198). 
'V of Va.. II, 137. 
'Hening, II. 280. 

* Cooke, Virginia, 226-230. 



The Suffrage in Virginia. 31 

of the new act were, first, that 

" the usuall way of chuseing burgesses by the votes of all persons who 
haveing served their tyme are ffreemen of this country who haveing 
little interest in the country doe ofner make tumults at the election to 
the disturbance of his majesties peace, then [than] by their discretions 
in their votes provide for the conservasion thereof, by makeing choyce 
of persons fitly qualifyed for the discharge of soe great a trust;" 

and, secondly, that 

" the lawes of England grant a voyce in such election only to such as 
by their estates real or personall have interest enough to tye them to 
the endeavor of the publique good." 

The law then provided 

" that none but freeholders and housekeepers who only are answerable 
to the publique for the levies shall hereafter have a voice in the election 
of any burgesses in this country ; and that the election be at the court- 
house." 1 

Thus the first limitation of the suffrage, ostensibly adopted 
on account of evil practices in the colony and because of the 
force of English custom, restricted the voters to the house- 
holding and freeholding classes. 

In 1673, when Charles II gave away Virginia to Arling- 
ton and Culpepper, the colonists took measures to assert 
their rights ; and in the correspondence concerning this grant, 
while no mention is made of the suffrage, yet the right of 
representation is most strongly asserted. 2 The colony agents 
in applying for a new charter for the province asked that 
" no manner of impositions or taxes shall be laid or imposed 
upon the inhabitants and proprietors there, unless by the 
common consent of the governor, council, and burgesses, as 

1 Hening, II, 280. Bishop, Elections in American Colonies, p. 71, calls 
attention to the fact that the customs of England permitted only free- 
holders, and not those possessing a certain amount of personal prop- 
erty, to have a voice in county elections. 

3 For facts and papers relating to the Culpepper grant, see Hening, 
II, 311, 427-428, 518-521, 578-583; Beverly (London ed. of 1722), 64- 
66; Burk, Hist, of Va., II, 142-152, Appendix xxxiii to cxii; Neill, 
Virginia Carolorum, 381 ff. 



;,j Thi Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

hath been heretofore used." ■ The right of taxation in their 
nun assembly, they said, "contains that which we conceive 
to be the right of Virginians, as well as all other English- 
men, which is not to be taxed but by their consent, expressed 
by their representatives." 2 

While this question was exciting the colonial land-owners, 
a greater danger threatened the authorities in Virginia. 
Many reasons for discontent had arisen throughout the col- 
ony ; heavy taxes had been laid and unwisely expended, the 
Indian wars were poorly managed, forts had fallen into 
decay, the usual meetings of the assembly had been costly, 
evils had crept into the management of county and parish 
affairs, and the governor had kept one assembly without 
dissolution since 1661. 3 The hostility aroused by these evils 
in administration found its outlet in the uprising called 
Bacon's Rebellion. It is not our part to enter into the causes 
or purposes of this popular movement. There can be no 
doubt that Bacon's followers were not simply the lower and 
disfranchised classes, but that many of the revolutionists 
were well-to-do Englishmen, indignant against certain 
wrongs and willing to take what appeared to be a good 
opportunity to obtain redress of their grievances. 4 Bacon's 
energy and arguments won over many usually conservative 
citizens, and even gained control of the assembly which met 
in June, 1676; while among the people his courage and 
rough eloquence gained the support of the poor freemen, 
who had recently been excluded by the Virginia Long Par- 
liament from political power. It appears that non-property- 

1 Burk, II, appendix, p. xl. 

* Neill, Virginia Carolorum, 383. 

* See the very interesting sets of grievances presented to the royal 
commissioners after the rebellion, Va. Mag. of Hist., II, 166-173, 289- 

380-392; III, 132-147- The "long parliament" convened for the 
fir^t time March 23, 1660-1, and its last session began March 7, 1675-6; 
see W. G. and M. N. Stanard, The Colonial Virginia Register, p. 76. 

4 After the insurrection was suppressed, the Isle of Wight electors 
instructed their burgesses in assembly, " Wee desire you our Burgesses 
to give none of our estates away as formerly ye have done, but if ye 
must give such great sumes dispose of your own," Va. Mag. of History, 
II. 387. 



The Suffrage in Virginia. 33 

holding freemen participated in the elections for members 
of the assembly of June, 1676, 1 and the assembly took pains 
to restore the suffrage to such persons. 

One of the most significant features of " Bacon's Assem- 
bly" of 1676 2 is the broader democratic basis which was 
given to the state; not only was the suffrage restored to its 
former extent, but many offices which had been appointive 
were now for the first time made elective. Chapter VII of 
the acts of this assembly provided that the statute of 1670, 

" which forbids freemen to have votes in the election of burgesses be 
repealed, and that they may be admitted together with the freeholders 
and householders to vote as formerly in such elections." 3 

All militia officers had formerly been appointed by the 
governor, but now it was permitted that in certain troops 
" the soldiers for greater encouragement have free liberty 
to nominate theire owne officers," provided they were chosen 
from the militia officers of the respective counties. 4 In the 
same manner the " long continuance of vestries" was de- 
clared a grievance; the old self -perpetuating vestrymen 
were set aside for new boards elected for a term of three 
years by the " freeholders and freemen of every parish," and 
the members of the vestries were to be freeholders or sub- 
stantial householders. 5 Still another step towards democ- 
racy is seen in the provision for a representative county levy 
court, composed of the justices and an equal number of 
representatives elected by the majority of votes of freehold- 
ers, householders, and freemen in each parish of the county. 6 

Bacon's power was of short duration, and his changes in 
the laws did not long survive the overthrow of his authority. 
Royal instructions sent to Governor Berkeley in November, 
1676, 7 said: 

1 Campbell, History of Virginia, 289; Cooke, Virginia, 245. 

2 For legislation of this assembly, see Hening, II, 34i~3^5- 
8 Hening, II, 356. 

* Hening, II, 348. 
5 Hening, II, 356. 
8 Hening, II, 357. 
7 Hening, II, 424-5. 



34 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

'• I You shalbe noe more obliged to call an assembly once every 
yeare, but only once in two yeares, unlesse some emergent occasion 
shall make it necessary, the judging whereof wee leave to your discre- 
tion. Alsoe whensoever the assembly is called ffourteene dayes shalbe 
the time prefixed tor their sitting and noe longer, unlesse you finde 
goode cause to continue it beyond that tyme. 

'II you shall take care that the members of the assembly be elected 
only by fTreeholders, as being more agreeable to the custome of Eng- 
land to which you are as nigh as conveniently you can to conforme 
yourselfe." 

The king further directed Berkeley to declare all the legisla- 
tion of Bacon's Assembly null and void, an instruction which 
was enacted into law by an assembly of February, 1676-7. 1 
It is not certain that the suffrage was at once limited to free- 
holders, for after the repeal of the Bacon acts no new law 
was passed for a number of years, and it is thought probable 
that the freeholder and householder clause of the act of 1670 
was enforced for a time. 2 

Lord Culpepper's commission as governor of Virginia 
gave him power to call assemblies elected by the " fTreehold- 
ers and Planters" of the colony according to the former 
usage of the province. 3 An assembly of 1684, however, 
passed a resolution which is the first formal act limiting the 
suffrage to land-holders. From this year, 1684, until 1830, 
no one but freeholders could vote in Virginia. The assembly 

" Resolved, That it is the undoubted right of every person who holds 
lands, tenements or hereditaments for his owne life, for the life of his 
wife, or for the life of any other person or persons to vote in Election 
of Burgesses for the county where such lands, tenements, &c, doe lye." 

This resolution, by a negative interpretation, might be taken 
as excluding from elections those who did not possess land ; 
but it did not expressly do so, and it contained no punitive 
provision for irregular voting. 

These errors were corrected fifteen years later in an act 

1 Hcning. II, 380. 

2 Lord Culpepper's instructions of 1680 provided that voters should 
be freeholders and householders, Neill, Virginia Carolorum, 390. 

'Calendar of Virginia State Papers, I, 14-16 



The Suffrage in Virginia. 35 

of 1699, the purpose of which was said to be the " prevention 
of undue elections of Burgeses." 1 This act distinctly dis- 
qualified from voting those who were not freeholders of the 
respective counties and towns, and imposed a fine of five 
hundred pounds of tobacco upon any disfranchised person 
presuming to vote. An important feature of the act was the 
exclusion of certain freeholders who under the earlier vague 
phrases might have claimed a voice in elections : 

" Provided always and it is the true intent of this act that no woman 
sole or covert, infants under the age of twenty-one years, or recusant 
convict being freeholders shall be entitled to give a vote or have a 
voice in the election of burgeses." 

The direct exclusion of women is unusual in colonial 
laws, the practice of male suffrage generally being so strong 
that no formal exclusion was considered necessary. This 
clause, by excluding " recusant convicts/' deprived Catholics 
of the right to vote, an exclusion which was continued until 
the Revolution; and an act of the same session rendered 
popish recusants convict incapable of being witnesses in any 
case whatever. 2 Other sections provided that if the sheriff 
could not determine the election " upon the view," that he 
should appoint clerks, who were to write down the electors' 
names and the persons for whom they voted; that where a 
person's freehold were in doubt, he might be compelled to 
swear or affirm to his qualification ; that a candidate bribing 
electors should be rendered incapable of sitting in the assem- 
bly for which he had been chosen ; together with a number 
of other administrative provisions. 

An act of the same year with this election law restricted 
jury service also to freeholders who possessed one hundred 
pounds sterling real and personal estate. 3 In 1705 the de- 
tails of the elective system were much more fully elaborated. 4 
The forms of writs and their proclamation in the churches, 
the duties of sheriffs and their deputies, the manner of 

1 Hening, III, 172-175. Cf. English Statute, 7 and 8 Wm. Ill, ch. 25. 

2 Hening, III, 298. 

3 Hening, III, 175-176. 

4 Hening, III, 236-246. 



36 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

making election returns, and many other features were now 
1 tied. Some slight change was made in the suffrage 
provisions. The new section said that, 

\ftcr publication of writs, and time and place for election of bur- 
gesses as Aforesaid, every freeholder, actually resident within the county 
where the election is to be made, respectively shall appear accordingly, 
and give his vote at such election, upon penalty of forfeiting two hun- 
dred pounds of tobacco to such person or persons as will inform and 
sue for the same." 

Thus to freeholdership inhabitancy was added, and a fine 
was again levied upon those neglecting to vote. The term 
freeholder, already limited by the resolution of 1684, received 
another definition in this act. It was now held to extend to 
" every person who hath an estate real for his own life, or 
the life of another, or any estate of greater dignity." 

A curious provision is to be found in another law of the 
year 1705. 1 This act declared that negro, mulatto, and 
Indian slaves should be accounted real estate, and with some 
slight changes should descend in fee simple according to the 
rules for the descent of land. But if slaves were to be held 
as real estate, the question would arise whether a man could 
vote who possessed this form of real estate alone. This 
question the assembly answered in the negative, expressly 
stating that the holders of slaves and not of other real estate 
should not possess the privilege of a freeholder in elections. 

Women, Catholics, and minors being freeholders had been 
expressly excluded from the suffrage by the acts of 1699 
and 1705. In the latter year negroes, mulattoes, and Indians 
were forbidden, under penalty of heavy fines, to hold any 
civil, military, or ecclesiastical office in the colony. 2 A fur- 
ther limitation came in 1723, perhaps as a result of an 
attempted negro insurrection, 3 when the assembly enacted 
' That no free negro, mulatto, or Indian whatsoever shall 

1 Hening, III, 333. 

1 Hening, III, 251. A mulatto was defined as a child of an Indian, 
and the child, grandchild or great-grandchild of a negro. 

■J. A. C. Chandler, The History of Suffrage in Virginia, I. H. U. 
Studies, XIX, Nos. 6 and 7, p. 12. 



The Suffrage in Virginia. 37 

hereafter have any vote at the elections of burgesses, or any 
other election whatsoever." 1 The attorney of the Board 
of Trade, Richard West, when commenting upon this law, 
gave expression to views which show the English tendency 
towards legal equality, but which also prove that he knew 
little of colonial conditions. He wrote, 

"I cannot see why one freeman should be used worse than another, 
merely on account of his complexion. ... It cannot be right to strip 
all persons of a black complexion from those rights which are so justly 
valuable to any freeman." 2 

His opinion was not accepted either in England or the col- 
ony, and after 1723 the voting privilege was limited to 
white male Protestant freeholders, twenty-one years of age, 
who resided in the county where they offered to vote. 

Thus by successive limitations Virginia was getting away 
from the earlier manhood suffrage, and another restriction 
was soon to come. As early as 1710 we learn of election 
frauds and contested seats in the assembly. 3 In a letter of 
October 15, 17 12, Governor Spots wood described the evil 
to the Board of Trade, as follows : 4 

"This unhappy State of her Maj't's Subjects in my Neighbourhood 
is ye more affecting to me because I have very little hopes of being 
enabled to relieve them by our Assembly, which I have called to meet 
next Week; for the Mob of this Country having tryed their Strength 
in the late Election and finding themselves able to carry whom they 
please, have generally chosen representatives of their own Class, who 
as their principal Recommendation have declared their resolution to 
raise no Tax on the people, let the occasion be what it will. This is 
owing to a defect in the Constitution, which allows to every one, tho' 
just out of the Condition of a Serv't, and that can but purchase half an 
acre of Land, an equal vote with the Man of the best Estate in the 
Country." 

The governor here hinted at the next restriction which 
would be placed upon the freedom of elections, although the 

1 Hening, IV, I33~I34- 

2 Neill, Virginia Carolorum, 330, note 1. 

3 Calendar of Va. State Papers, I, 142-3- 

4 Letters of Governor Spotswood, II, 1. 



The Suffrage Franchise m the English Colonics. 

defect in the constitution which he mentioned was not reme- 
died until almost a quarter of a century after the date of his 
letter. The English Board of Trade instructed Spotswood 
to try to have a law passed for raising the qualifications of 
and they promised to see that something was done 
in England to force the colonists to adopt such a measure. 1 
There can be no doubt that the granting of the suffrage to 
all freeholders without placing any lower limit to the size 
o! the freehold led to many evils. " Divers frauds" were 
practised " to create and multiply votes" by the making of 
" leases of small and inconsiderable parcels of land upon 
feigned considerations, and by subdividing lots of ground 
in towns;" all of which was declared to be " in prejudice of 
the rights of the true freeholder." 2 

To remedy these conditions the act of 1736 was passed, 3 
which named a minimum amount of freehold to be held by 
electors. The limiting clause directed 

M That no person or persons whatsoever shall hereafter have a right 
to vote at any election of members to serve in the general assembly, 
for any county, who hath not an estate of freehold, or other greater 
estate, in one hundred acres of land, at least, if no settlement be made 
upon it ; or twenty-five acres with a house and plantation, in his pos- 
session, or in the possession of his tenant or tenants, for term of years, 
in the same county where he gives such vote." 

Where the freehold had come by purchase, the holder could 
not vote in virtue of it until he had been in possession one 
year. In the case of joint tenants, only one vote was to be 
given, unless the freehold was sufficient in quantity to give 
each joint tenant the amount required for legal electors. In 
towns the qualification was different from that in the country 
districts, and was based upon houses and lots rather than 
acres of freehold. 

" Provided always, that nothing in this act contained shall be con- 
strued to hinder any person to vote at such elections, in respect or in 
right of any houses, lands, or tenements, lying and being in any city 

1 Chandler, The Suffrage in Va. } J. H. U. Stud., XIX, 12. 

' Hening, IV, 475. 

a Hening. IV, 475-478. Cf. English statute, 10 Ann., ch. 31. 



The Suffrage in Virginia. 39 

or town, laid out and established by act of assembly, so as such person 
be a freeholder, in any house or lot, or a house, and part of a lot; but 
where the interest in any such house and lot, or house and part of a 
lot, is or shall be divided among several persons, no more than one 
single voice shall be admitted for one and the same house or lot." x 

A fine of forty pounds was laid upon any one making or 
drafting a fraudulent conveyance in order to qualify voters, 
and upon those voting by virtue of such estates; and all 
these conveyances, whether made before or after the passage 
of the act, were pronounced null and void. It is to be noted 
also, that neither this act nor the later ones of 1762 and 1769 
contained the limitation imposed by the act of 1705, that 
voting freeholders should be inhabitants of the county. 
Later, plural voting was apparently permitted where free- 
holders held the requisite amount of land in several counties, 
and elections in neighboring counties were held on different 
days. 2 

The Virginia act of 1736 has a number of interesting 
features. It is remarkable for the attempt to adapt the suf- 
frage qualifications to different classes of the inhabitants. 
The three alternatives, — one hundred acres of land, or 
twenty-five acres and a house, or a town house and lot, — 

X A town lot by some early laws must be one-half an acre (Hening, 
III, 417, 423) ; but by the later acts it might be less but could not be 
greater than that amount (Hening, IV, 235; V, 193, 198). In the 
laws erecting towns many specifications are given concerning the size, 
position, and manner of building houses in the towns; and as these 
regulations differed in the several towns, the exact nature of the suf- 
frage clause would be a matter of local interpretation. In Williams- 
burg, houses on the main street must be twenty by forty or fifty feet, 
and on the other streets each house must cover four or five hundred 
feet (Hening, III, 429) ; in Fredericksburg, houses were to be twenty 
by twenty feet with a pitch of nine feet (Hening, IV, 236) ; in Leeds 
the building rules were similar to those in Fredericksburg (Hening, V, 
193) ; while in Suffolk the legal size of houses was sixteen by twenty 
feet, with a height of eight feet (Hening, V, 198). 

2 See a contested election case hinging upon plural voting, quoted by 
J. F. Jameson, The Nation, Vol. 56, 309- Also. Beverly (1722), 206: 
" The freeholders are the only electors, and wherever they have a free- 
hold . . . they have a vote in the election." 



40 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

while all requiring a freehold, so adapted the freehold quali- 
fication to the varying circumstances of the people that in 
reality the restriction upon the suffrage was not so great as 
at first might appear. Later, when the act of 1762 lowered 
the freehold to fifty acres, and reduced the size of town 
houses, the franchise was placed upon a more liberal basis 
than in many of the other colonies. Further, after 1736, 
two places, Williamsburg and Norfolk, had a peculiarly 
wide borough franchise. The act contains, too, the unique 
feature of fractional voting. 1 Plural voting has been men- 
tioned in this work in several places, but it is believed that no 
case of fractional voting for colonial assemblymen is to be 
found except in Virginia, where a number of joint-tenants 
could unite to cast one vote for their freehold. Thus, 
throughout this act, and the later ones of 1762 and 1769 
which liberalized, rather than restricted, its provisions, there 
is an evident intention to examine closely the various classes 
of landholders and frame a law which would admit all the 
reputable freeholders to the elective franchise. 

An elaborate election law, which set the voter's qualifi- 
cations and explained in detail the electing process, was 
passed in 1762. The former laws had "proved defective," 
and the new law organized the electoral system so thor- 
oughly that its provisions remained in force long into the 
commonwealth period. The act 2 provided for the election 
of " most able and fit men" as burgesses ; two elected by 
the freeholders of each county, one by the freeholders of 
James City, and one each by the city of Williamsburg, the 
borough of Norfolk, and the College of William and Mary 
according to their respective charter privileges. No assem- 
bly could continue longer than seven years, and a new elec- 
tion must be held at least three years after a dissolution 
of an assembly. The general elector's qualification was 
changed in the direction of a broader suffrage by lowering 
the amount of unsettled land from one hundred acres with a 
fifty acres; the old provision of twenty-five acres with a 
house and plantation was now rendered more explicit by 

1 Reference will be made to fractional voting on Long Island and 
in New England. 
1 Chapter I of November, 1762, Hening, VII, 517-530. 



The Suffrage in Virginia. 41 

requiring the house to be at least twelve feet square; and 
the same sized house was required of town voters, 1 except 
in Williamsburg and Norfolk, where the charters and for- 
mer laws should govern the elections. 2 

" Every person shall have a right to vote at any election of Burgesses 
for any county who hath an estate of freehold for his own life, or the 
life of another, or other greater estate in at least fifty acres of land, if 
no settlement be made upon it, or twenty-five acres, with a plantation 
and house thereon, at least twelve feet square, in his possession, or in 
the possession of his tenant or tenants, for term of years at will or 
sufferance, in the same county where he gives such vote; . . . and 
every person possessed of a lot, or part of a lot, in any city or town 
established by act of assembly, with a house thereon at least twelve feet 
square, shall have a right to vote at such elections." 

Joint tenancies should qualify all the joint owners only 
when the freehold was of sufficient quantity to furnish the 
legal amount to each, and where it was less than this, but 
one vote was to be given for the tenancy, and that only in 
case all the parties interested could agree. The disfran- 
chised class remained the same as under the earlier acts, 
except that a convict freeholder was excluded from voting 
only during the time for which he had been transported. 
The fine of five hundred pounds of tobacco upon disqualified 
persons who voted illegally was retained, as also that of 
two hundred pounds upon qualified persons who neglected 
to vote. Freeholds, as previously, must be held for one year 
before qualifying a person to vote, unless the lands came by 
descent, marriage, marriage settlement, or devise. The act 
of 1762, while attaining a desirable end by carefully out- 
lining the management of elections, must also have W6rked 
an extension of the suffrage, since it cut down the general 
land requirements from one hundred to fifty acres, and low- 
ered the legal size of houses in the towns. The qualifica- 

2 The size twelve by twelve feet would work an extension of the 
suffrage in the towns also, for the legal requirement for house-building 
in the towns always specified a larger structure than twelve by twelve 
feet, the usual proportions being twenty by twenty feet. 

2 Hening, VII, 529. 



4-* The Suffrage Franchise m the English Colonies. 
tiona thus established were practically unchanged down to 

Turning from these uniform suffrage qualifications, we 
must now notice three exceptions to the general election pro- 
as, — the cases of electors in the city of Williamsburg, 
in the borough of Norfolk, and in the College of William 
and Mary.- The first law relating to the city of Williams- 
burg was passed in 1699, 3 and this was followed by a sup- 
plemental act in 1705. 4 The plot of the city was divided 
into half-acre lots upon which the owners were required to 
erect buildings within two years after purchase, and the 
height, size, and position of nouses were determined by law 
and by regulations of the commissioners appointed under 
the law. On July 28, 1722, the city received a charter"' 
which established a municipal corporation with self-perpetu- 
ating officers, and gave the city the privilege of sending 
one burgess to the assembly. Following the English and 
general colonial custom, the borough franchise was placed 
upon a basis differing from the county freehold qualifica- 
tion. The electors in the city were ( 1 ) the mayor, recorder, 
aldermen, and common councilmen; (2) all freeholders own- 
ing a whole lot of ground with a house Luilt thereon accord- 
ing to law, 6 (3) all actual inhabitants and residents of the 

1 The act of 1769 (Chapter I, November, 1769, Hening, VIII, 305- 
317) re-enacted almost all the provisions of the law of 1762. The most 
important omissions were the sections requiring the dissolution of 
assembly at least once in seven years, and an election at least three 
years after the dissolution. By the new act lands need be held only six 
months before the election, and unanimity upon the part of joint tenants 
was not required. 

2 Jamestown, which was another exception to the uniform county 
representation, was not the recipient of any special suffrage privileges. 

"Hening, III, 197. 

4 Hening, III, 419-432. 

8 Partially recited in Hening, V, 204. 

8 The act of 1705 had given many details concerning the building of 
houses ; requiring those on the main street of Williamsburg to measure 
twenty by fifty feet, or if possessing two brick chimneys and bricked 
cellar, then twenty by forty feet; and houses on other streets were to 
cover four or five hundred square feet according as bricks did or did 
not enter into their construction. (Hening, III, 425, 429, 430.) 



The Suffrage in Virginia. 43 

city who had a visible estate of fifty pounds current money ; 
(4) all persons who had served five years to any trade in 
the city, and after the expiration of their service, were actual 
housekeepers and inhabitants of the city. These provisions 
were explained at large by an act of 1742, 1 but no change 
was made in them except that a residence of twelve months 
was required of those voting as inhabitants, and unanimity 
of joint tenants was required before a vote could be cast 
for their lot. 

The charter of Norfolk, of 1736, made the voting class 
almost identical with that of Williamsburg. 2 As later ex- 
plained by the assembly, 3 the suffrage was vested in free- 
holders owning at least one-half a lot of ground with a 
house of the size required for a whole lot, or inhabitants 
having resided twelve months in the town and owning fifty 
pounds visible estate, or tradesmen who had served five 
years to a trade in the town, had received a certificate from 
the court of hustings and were actually inhabitants and 
housekeepers. Indentured and covenanted servants were 
especially excluded from voting as inhabitants. 

The elaborate act of 1705 4 for "establishing ports and 
towns/' so notably unsuccessful, also contained a clause per- 
mitting each town, after receiving sixty families of inhabi- 
tants and becoming fully organized as a borough, to send 
one burgess to the assembly, who was to be elected by adult 
male freeholders and housekeepers of the town. 5 This pro- 
vision was not carried out within the next five years, and at 
the end of that time the act was repealed by the governor in 
accordance with the Queen's instructions. 

An inspection of the suffrage features of the charters of 
Williamsburg and Norfolk shows their close similarity to 
the city or borough charters in the neighboring colonies 

1 Hening, V, 204-207. 

2 See charter in Ingle, Local Institutions in Virginia, J. H. U. Studies, 
III, No. 2, 121-126. It was later confirmed by act of assembly (Hen- 
ing, IV, 541). 

3 Act of 1753, Hening, VI, 261-265. 

* Hening, III, 404-419; repealed by Governor Spotswood's proclama- 
tion in 1710. 
6 Hening, III, 414. 



44 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

of North Carolina, Maryland, Delaware, and Pennsylvania. 
Indeed, wherever population was grouped in cities or towns 
in the middle or southern colonies, the colonial custom fol- 
lowed the English precedent of adapting the suffrage quali- 
fications to the variant economic conditions of the towns- 
people. The freehold requirement, which in the country 
districts excluded few honest and industrious men, would 
be almost prohibitive among the merchant and artisan classes 
in the towns. The colonial legislators, undoubtedly ac- 
quainted with the English borough charters, recognized this 
economic difference when defining the voting class. 

A third exception to the uniform election laws is to be 
found in the representation granted to the College of Wil- 
liam and Mary according to the terms of its charter of 1693. 
Following the privileges granted to Oxford and Cambridge, 
the Virginia college received the right to send one burgess 
to the assembly, who should be elected by the president and 
six masters of the college from their own number, or from 
the board of visitors or from among the citizens of the 
colony. 1 This right was respected by subsequent legislation, 
and the elections of representatives for the college were made 
by the seven persons authorized to do so by the charter. 2 

1 The charter provided : 

" XVIII. and, also, of our special grace, certain knowledge 
and mere motion we have given and granted, and by these pres- 
ents, for us and our successors, do give and grant to the said 
President and masters or professors of the said College, full 
and absolute power, liberty, and authority to nominate, elect, 
and constitute one discreet and able person of their own num- 
ber, or of the number of the said visitors, or governors, or 
lastly of the better sort of inhabitants of our colony of Vir- 
ginia, to be present in the house of Burgesses of the General 
Assembly of our colony of Virginia, and there to act and con- 
sent to such things as by the common advice of our said colony 
shall (God willing) happen to be enacted." 
'At a meeting of the President and masters on January 8, 1720^30, 
the following action was taken : 

" Upon the Governor's writt to elect a Burgess according to the Char- 
ter to serve in the Assembly, which is prorogued to the of feb- 

ruary, the election fell unanimously on Dr. George Nicholas ;" William 
and Mary College Quarterly, I, 134. See also Morrison, History of 
William and Mary College, 48. 



The Suffrage in Virginia. 45 

We have been noting heretofore the elections for the as- 
sembly. The facts concerning local suffrage can be told in 
a few words, since Virginia possessed very few local elec- 
tions, the most important of which were those for church 
officers. Church wardens were to be chosen annually under 
the acts of 163 1-2, 1632, and 1642-3, but no description is 
given of the method of election. 1 In 1644-5, after vestries 
had been in existence for some time, the assembly directed 
that the vestrymen should be chosen by the " major part of 
the parishioners, ... by pluralitie of voices." 2 The min- 
ister was chosen by the vestry, but in an election in 1649 ^ 
was stated that the vestry made choice of a minister, with 
the full and free consent of the freemen of the parish. 3 The 
early laws do not provide for any changes in the vestry, but 
in 1 66 1-2 4 they were empowered to fill vacancies in their 
own number, and with the minister to elect the two church 
wardens from among themselves. Bacon's Assembly in 
1676 limited the term of vestries to three years, and provided) 
for their election by the " freeholders and freemen" of every 
parish, thus granting manhood suffrage in their election ; 5 
but this, together with all the other legislation of this assem- 
bly, was of short duration. In 1708 the governor and coun- 
cil ordered that in an approaching vestry election, " for 
avoiding all tumult and confusion, which usually happens on 
such occasions," " every freeholder and Householder paying 
Seott and Lett [scot and lot] in the parish and no other 
have vote at the said election." 6 The rule here laid down 
was followed by the assembly in the later acts, when for any 
reason a new vestry must be elected. Thus, whenever a new 
parish was erected, or the vestrymen of an old parish neg- 
lected their duties or were proved to be dissenters, a new 
vestry was chosen by the freeholders and householders of 
the parish. 7 Although not regularly chosen, yet when ves- 

1 Hening, I, 155, 180, 240. 

8 Hening, I, 290. 

8 Lower Norfolk County Virginia Antiquary, II, 63. 

4 Hening, II, 44-5. 

'Hening, II, 356. 

8 Calendar of Virginia State Papers, I, 122. 

7 See Hening, passim; e.g., IV, 304 305, 443, 467; V, 80, 96, 211, 



4<> The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

trymen were elected the suffrage was on a broader basis 
than in the assembly elections. 

The abortive town act of 1 705 contained a number of 
provisions for popular elections, in which the suffrage was 
extended to all free adult inhabitants and freeholders of the 
proposed towns, but these features were not put in force 
under this act; and under the later town charters the local 
government was of the close corporation type without elective 
features. 1 The same absence of elective officers is seen in 
the county government, where the only exception is the tem- 
porary provision for local county representatives, who were 
joined with the county court in the levying of taxes. These, 
under Bacon's laws, were to be elected in each parish by the 
" freeholders, householders, and freemen," 2 but subsequently 
the freemen were excluded and the election limited to free- 
holders and householders. 3 Only one reference has been 
found to elective militia officers, and this, too, was among 
the transitory work of Bacon's Assembly. 4 
^In closing the subject of the suffrage in Virginia, refer- 
ence must be made to some figures and conclusions given by 
Professor J. F. Jameson and President L. G. Tyler concern- 
ing the numbers of the voting class in Virginia. Professor 
Jameson, in a comparison of the extent of the suffrage in 
Virginia with that in Massachusetts, comes to the conclusion 
that about six per cent, of the white population of Virginia 
took part in thirteen elections between 1744 and 1772, the 
individual cases varying from four to nine per cent. 5 Presi- 
dent Tyler has developed the idea, and in a series of election 
returns c has shown that the proportion of voters was even 
greater than that given by Professor Jameson. These figures 



254, 259, 274, 381 ; VI, 256, 276, 381 ; VII, 132, 144, 153, 301, 303; VIII, 
432. Returns of vestry elections in 1761 will be found in Lower Nor- 
folk County Virginia Antiquary, I, 18-19. 
1 See charters of Williamsburg and Norfolk already quoted. 

* Hening, II, 357. 

* Hening, II, 441. 
'Hening, II, 348. 

* JV. Y. Nation, April 27, 1893, Vol. 56, 309-310. 

8 Virginians Voting in the Colonial Period, William and Mary Quar- 
terly, VI, 7-13. 



The Suffrage in Virginia. 47 

give eight per cent, of the white population voting in an 
election in Elizabeth City County in 1758, ten per cent, in 
King George County in the same year, and seven and one- 
half per cent, in Prince William County in 1741. In West- 
moreland County for 1741, 1748, 1752 the proportions are 
seven and one-half, ten, and eight and one-half per cent, 
respectively; while in Essex County in 1761 and 1765 the 
voters numbered about ten per cent, of the white inhabitants. 
Taking the average of these poll-lists, it would appear that 
almost nine per cent, of the white population actually par- 
ticipated in these elections; or that one white person in 
eleven not only had a right to vote, but did perform that 
duty. In this respect Virginia compares favorably with the 
New England and the middle colonies. Taking the figures 
of a somewhat later period in Massachusetts, 1 or the poll- 
lists given for New York City, 2 it is apparent that the fran- 
chise was more widely exercised, if not more widely con- 
ferred, in Virginia than in the more northern colonies. 

1 J. F. Jameson, New Eng. Magazine, Jan., 1890. 

2 See p. 217. 



CHAPTER III. 
The Suffrage in Maryland. 

The suffrage in Maryland furnishes a number of pecu- 
liarities which mark off its political conditions from those 
in other colonies. The presence of tlie Catholics in a con- 
siderable number complicated the political question with the 
religious one, and led through an alternation of toleration 
and persecution to a policy of constant repression. The 
early primary assemblies and universal suffrage, and their 
development into a proxy system and a true representative 
organization, are most interesting for the light they throw 
upon the inevitable growth from pure democracy to repre- 
sentation. And the successive processes of suffrage limita- 
tion show the transition from an early economic and political 
equality to a condition of diversity in wealth and privileges. 

The royal charter to Baltimore * enjoined upon the pro- 
prietor the necessity of admitting the inhabitants of the 
province to a share in the making of laws : 

He had power " to ordain, make, and enact laws . . . with the advice 
... of the free men of the said»province, or of the greater part of 
them, or of their delegates or deputies, whom we will shall be called 
together for the framing of laws, when and as often as need shall 
require, by the aforesaid now baron of Baltimore. ... So nevertheless 
that the laws aforesaid be consonant to reason, and be not repugnant 
or contrary, but (so far as conveniently may be) agreeable to the laws, 
statutes, customs, and rights of this our Kingdom of England. ..." 

While there could be no doubt that the charter required 
the association of the colonists with the proprietor in the 
making of laws, yet it did not clearly state the class among 
the colonists who should enjoy the suffrage. The document, 
written in Latin, used the phrases liberi homines and liberi 
tenentes in speaking of the political people, and it was at one 

1 Bozman, History of Maryland, II, 9 ff; Poore, Charters and Con- 
stitutions, I, 811-817; Archives of Md., Proceedings of Council, 1637- 
1667, 3 - i2. 
48 



The Suffrage in Maryland. 49 

time thought that the power thus granted devolved only on 
freeholders. Later interpreters, noting the practice of the 
assemblies, have taken the other view, that the charter 
granted the suffrage to all free men. 1 

No provision is made in the instructions to the first gov- 
ernor, Leonard Calvert, for a popular assembly; 2 but less 
than a year after the colonists arrived in the province they 
met in assembly and passed certain laws. The acts of this 
first meeting, evidently a primary assembly of the colonists, 
are shrouded in uncertainty. 3 Some legislation must have 
been passed, for the commission to Governor Calvert in 1637 
directs him to express the proprietor's dissent to all laws 
heretofore passed. 4 But leaving this early assembly, whose 
work we know only by indirect reference, we may note the 
more important second assembly, the records of which have 
been quite fully preserved. 

The governor's commission of April 15, 1637, directed 
him to call an assembly of the freemen in the following 
January and present to them certain laws drafted in Eng- 
land; and empowered him to call future assemblies of the 
freemen, whose acts must be submitted to the proprietor for 
his approval. 5 In accordance with this commission the gov- 
ernor issued writs summoning an assembly for January 25, 
1637-8, by which the respective commanders were instructed 
" to endeavor to persuade fit freemen to attend in person," 
and to permit the rest of the freemen to attend in person, or 
elect their deputies. 6 

1 See Bozman, II, 47, note ; McMahon, History of Maryland, 443, 
note 1 ; G. W. Brown, The Origin and Growth of Civil Liberty in 
Maryland, 9. 

* Instructions in Calvert Papers, Md. Hist. Soc. Fund Publications, 
1889, 131-140; Hart, History by Contemporaries, I, 247-252. 

*S. F. Streeter, Papers Relating to the Early History of Md., Md. 
Hist. Soc. Fund Pub., 1876, 7; B. F. Johnson, The Founding of 
Maryland and the Origin of the Act Concerning Religion, Hist. Soc. 
Fund Pub., No. 18, 1883, 34-5. 

* Archives of Maryland, Proceedings of Council, 1636-67, 49. 
"Ibid. 

8 " and to give free power & liberty to all the rest of the said freemen 
either to be p'nt at the said assembly if they so please; or otherwise 
to elect and nominate such and so many persons as they or the maior 

4 



50 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

The assembly had as diverse a character as the writ per- 
mitted. Some persons came in their own right, others were 
represented by proxies given to attending freemen, while 
Kent Island was represented by a regularly elected deputy. 1 
In all perhaps ninety persons were either present or repre- 
sented during the sessions of the assembly. An inspection 
of the economic station of the attendants shows great differ- 
ences existing among the freemen; mariners, carpenters, a 
cooper, and a brick-mason were associated with the governor, 
the sheriff, three priests, and many gentlemen and planters. 2 
The suffrage appears to have been upon the broadest possible 
basis. Two carpenters and two mariners who claimed a 
voice in the affairs of assembly were admitted and allowed 
to attend personally or appoint proxies ; 3 and two persons 
from Kent Island, having previously voted for the repre- 
sentative, were permitted to participate personally in the 
meetings. 4 The freemen so met in assembly fined those who 
did not attend or give proxies, and even directed that all 
freemen present in the assembly, or who had given proxies, 
were to be free from arrest during the sessions of the assem- 
bly. The assembly by a decisive vote of 37 to 14 refused 

part of them so assembled shall agree upon to be the deputies or bur- 
gesses for the said freemen, in their name and steed to advise and con- 
sult of such things as shalbe brought into deliberation in the said as- 
sembly." Archives of Md., Proceedings and Acts of Assembly, 1637- 
64. 1. 

1 Archives, Assembly, 1637-64, 2-6. The delegate was elected by 
the people in the presence of Governor Calvert, who had gone to Kent 
Island to enforce Baltimore's claims; Calvert Papers in Md. Hist. Soc. 
Fund Pub., 1889, 185. 

Streeter, op. cit., 61, gives the occupations of members as follows: 

Governor I Ship-carpenter 1 

Secretary 1 Brick-mason I 

Sheriff 1 Cooper 1 

Marshal 1 Mariners 5 

Priests 3 Planters 48 

Gentlemen 10 Occupations not given 12 

Councillors 3 — 

Carpenters 2 Total 00 

* Archives, Assembly, 1637-64, 4, 5, 6. 

'Ibid.. 5, 8. 



The Suffrage in Maryland. 51 

to accept the laws sent over by the proprietor, and then pro- 
ceeded to adopt laws of their own making. 1 

For over ten years after 1638 no definite organization of 
the assemblies was established ; on some occasions they were 
pure democratic meetings, with the proxy privilege ; in other 
cases they were truly representative bodies ; while sometimes, 
as in the first gathering, there was a combination of these 
two principles. Within this period, also, the separation of 
the councillors from the freemen and burgesses was ac- 
complished and a bicameral system originated. 2 A few de- 
tails of these early assemblies may not be out of place as 
showing the development from a primary to a representative 
assembly system. 

The writs for the election of 1638-9 directed the election 
of burgesses in the respective hundreds, and summoned cer- 
tain named persons to appear individually, 3 thus implying 
a representative body; but when two persons from Saint 
Maries claimed a voice because they did not assent to the 
election of burgesses, they were admitted to the assembly. 4 
This indefinite organization was later permitted by a law 
of the same assembly, which gave the right to a seat in the 
legislature to councillors, to those summoned personally, or 
who were chosen by the freemen as burgesses, or who, as 
freemen, had not consented to the burgesses elected in any 
hundred and wished personally to attend. 5 This assembly 
further required all persons over eighteen years of age to 
swear allegiance to the king, under pain of confiscation of 
property and banishment from the province, thus limiting 
the rights of freemen to those taking the oath. 6 Another 
act guaranteed the liberties and free customs of English 



1 Archives, Assembly, 1637-64, 11-22. 

2 See Ibid., 130, 141, 209, 272, etc., for bicameral system. 

3 Ibid., 27-31. 

4 Ibid., 32. 

5 Ibid., 74, 81. The burgesses were to be "some one, two, or more 
able and sufficient men for the hundred;" and those personally sum- 
moned were to be " Gentlemen of able judgment and quality" or lords 
of manors when such have been erected. 

6 Ibid., 40. 



5 j The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

subjects to " all the Inhabitants of this Province being chris- 
tians (Slaves excepted)." 1 

An assembly of October 12-24, 1640, apparently a repre- 
sentative body, 1 was continued until 1641, although the free- 
men in the hundreds were permitted to substitute new bur- 
ses for the old ones if they desired. 3 Some changes were 
accordingly made, and when one of the displaced deputies 
claimed a seat in his own right he was refused. 4 

Another change to the primary assembly was made in 
March, 1641-2, when the writs for electing burgesses 5 were 
subsequently changed by the governor for new writs sum- 
moning all the freemen of the province to attend in person 
or to appoint their proxies or deputies. This assembly was 
attended by the governor, five councillors, and thirty-nine 
freemen personally, and proxies for twenty-two other free- 
men were held by those present. In July of the same year a 
representative assembly was held ; 7 and when two of the 
members asked to vote for the proxies of Kent Island in- 
habitants they were refused, being permitted only to cast 
their votes as deputies. 8 It was at this assembly that we 
notice the first tendency to distinguish between the burgesses 
on one hand and the councillors and those summoned by 
personal writ on the other. 9 

In September, 1642, the third assembly for that year met. 

1 Archives, Assembly, 1637-64, 41. 

2 Ibid., 87-89, where the writs of election are given. 
8 Ibid., 103-5. 

4 Ibid., 105. 
'Ibid., 113. 

8 Ibid., 115. "These are to publish and proclaim to all Persons In- 
habitants within this Province that I have appointed to hold a General 
Assembly of all the Freemen of this Province on monday being the 
one and twentieth day of this instant month and therefore to require 
all freemen whatsoever to take notice hereof and either to repair per- 
sonally ... or else to appoint and depute some other for their Proxy 
or deputy during the said Assembly there to consult and advise touchg 
the enacting of new Laws and other important affairs of this Province." 

7 See writs for election of burgesses, Archives, Assembly, 1637-64, 
127. 
• Ibid., 129. 

9 Ibid., 131, 141. 



The Suffrage in Maryland. 53 

This was a primary gathering, the writ directing " all free- 
men inhabiting within the Province to be at the said Assem- 
bly at the time & place aforesaid either by themselves or 
their Deputies or Delegates sufficiently Authorized." 1 In 
accordance with this order there appeared the governor and 
eighteen freemen personally, one hundred and five freemen 
were represented by proxies, fifteen were excused, and sev- 
enty-six were fined for not appearing, either by themselves 
or proxy. It is interesting to note that Brent, an inhabitant 
of Kent Island, held the proxies of seventy-three freemen of 
that island. At this meeting clear evidence is given of the 
extent of the suffrage and the application of the term free- 
man. The records show us a certain Weston, without land 
or certain dwelling, who claimed he was not a freeman, but 
the assembly decided he was such and must give attendance. 2 
Such an interpretation as this makes the word freeman mean, 
not a formally admitted member of a distinct corporation, 
but a man who is free, — that is, not bound to service or a 
slave. 

Proclamations for assemblies of all the freemen were again 
issued in December, 1642, March, 1643, an d November, 
1644, but no record of these assemblies has been noticed. 3 
In January, 1647-8, another pure democratic assembly was 
held. According to the governor's writ, this was to be 
composed of " All and Singular the Inhabts of this Prov- 
ince either by their psonall appearances or by Proxey or 
delegate ;" and by way of caution the governor advised " all 
such as shall not give their psonall attendance therein that 
they make choyse of such psons for their Delegates whose 
able iudgm't & ffortunes may render them more considerate 
to the weale publique." 4 A petition, unique in colonial his- 
tory, was made to this assembly by Mrs. Margaret Brent, 



1 Archives, Assembly, 1637-64, 167. 

2 " Mr. Thomas Weston being called pleaded he was no freeman 
because he had no land nor certain dwelling here, etc., but being put 
to the question it was voted that he was a Freeman and as such bound 
to his appearance by himself or proxie, whereupon he took his place 
in the house." Archives, Assembly, 1637-64, 170. 

3 Ibid., 201. 

4 Ibid., 213. 



54 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

who was executrix for the deceased governor, Leonard Cal- 
vert She demanded a voice and vote in the assembly, and 

when this was denied she protested against all the proceed- 
ing of the session. 1 This is the only instance found in all 
the colonial records of a demand for the suffrage upon the 
part i>t' a woman.- It was in this assembly, also, that the 
question of the freemenship of a certain person was decided 
Upon the basis of his not being bound to service. 3 

The assembly further introduced another variation in the 
representative system. We have noted that freemen might 
appear in person, or by proxy, and in some cases by deputy. 
On January 20, 1647-8, the freemen in assembly went even 
a step farther and selected from themselves sixteen persons, 
who with the governor and council were to constitute an 
assembly. A quorum of this secondary assembly was to be 
composed of the governor, the clerk, and ten freemen. 4 This 
delegated body later refused to permit other freemen to join 
them, stating that the sixteen chosen freemen alone had a 
voice in the assembly. 5 In this way a representative body 
was erected which closely corresponds to the representative 
boards chosen from the commonalty of New Amsterdam at 
various occasions under the Dutch rule, and is somewhat 
similar to the representative commissioners who were chosen 
in Rhode Island at about this time. In 1649-50 the writs 
permitted the election of delegates or the attendance of free- 
men as the counties or hundreds should determine, but for- 
bade any one bringing the proxies of more than two other 
freemen.''' 

1 Jan. 21, 1647-8. " Came Mrs. Margaret Brent and requested to have 
vote in the house for herselfe and voyce allso for that att the last Court 
3rd Jan. : it was ordered that the said Mrs. Brent was to be looked 
uppon and received as his Lps attorney. The Govr denyed that the sd 
Mr-. Brent -hould have any vote in the house. And the sd Mrs. Brent 
protested agst all Proceedings in this pnt Assembly, unlesse shee may 
be pnt and have vote as aforesd." Archives, Assembly, 1637-64, 215. 

1 An instance of woman suffrage has been noted in New York : see 
post, 192. 

Wchives, Assembly, 1637-64, 218-220. 

% Ibid. t 214. 

"Ibid., 217. 

'Ibid., 259. 



The Suffrage in Maryland. 55 

The details given above include the more important refer- 
ences to this interesting system of primary assemblies and 
proxy voting. It will be noticed that the franchise was co- 
extensive with free manhood; that there was absolutely no 
property qualification, and evidently no religious or definite 
residence restrictions. The demand for the suffrage by a 
woman also shows how broad must have been the prevailing 
ideas upon the subject. 

During the years 1 638-1 650, the greater number of the 
assemblies were supposed to be meetings of all the freemen, 
but it must not be imagined that any complete gathering of 
all the inhabitants ever took place. From the first the proxy 
system gave the freeman an excuse to stay at home, of which 
he was not slow to take advantage. In one assembly the 
eighteen freemen present held proxies for one hundred and 
five others, while one person held seventy-three proxies ; in 
another case the thirty-nine present held proxies for twenty- 
two others, and in still another assembly fifteen named per- 
sons and " divers other inhabitants" held proxies for ninety- 
three freemen. 1 There can be no doubt that the evils of such 
a system early became apparent. Immediately after the as- 
sembly of 1638, protests were sent to the proprietor in Eng- 
land against a system by which no man could be sure of what 
he hath, " but he that canne git most proxis in every assembly 
shall dispose of any mans estate that he pleaseth." 2 It was 
said that the governor and his friends, by the many proxies 
they had obtained, had been able to do whatever they wished 
without any restraint ; 3 and the fear was expressed that 
" any factious workingman," "if he would labor for it, 
might quickly get an over-swaying voice and carry by 
proxies what he will." 4 In spite of these objections to the 
system, or perhaps on account of them, the governors retained 
the proxy system for over ten years before the assembly was 
based upon the equal representation of geographical or cor- 
porate units. 

1 Archives, Assembly, 1637-64, 214. 

2 Md. Hist Soc. Fund Pub., 1889, Calvert Papers, 164. 

3 Ibid., 160. 

* Ibid., 169. It must be noted that these objections all came from one 
of the strong Catholic settlers. 



56 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

Before 1648, however, there began another movement, 
which was at length to limit the suffrage to Protestants and 
to exclude altogether from political activity those who had 
been instrumental in founding the colony. In 1642, when 
at least a majority, or perhaps three- fourths, of the popula- 
tion were Protestants, 1 a feeling of discontent arose in the 
province, 2 which was not allayed by acting Governor Brent's 
seizure of a parliamentary vessel in 1644. A year later the 
extreme Protestants rose in rebellion with Richard Ingle as 
their leader and drove out the Catholic priests and Governor 
Leonard Calvert. In the same year the Protestants of the 
colony wrote to England setting forth the tyrannical nature 
of their government under the popish recusants, who were 
seducing many to their religion ; and the English House of 
Lords acted upon these petitions by suggesting the settling 
of the province in Protestant hands. 3 Petitions and counter- 
petitions from Lord Baltimore and from merchants of Lon- 
don w r ere also sent to the Lords at this time. 4 Governor 
Calvert returned to the province in 1646, drove out Ingle, 
and restored the proprietary party. In the meantime the 
proprietor attempted to secure his position in the colony. 
This was done by commissioning Protestants to the principal 
offices, by granting amnesty, by proposing religious tolera- 
tion, and by requiring a stricter oath of allegiance to the 
proprietor. As early as 1638-9 such an oath had been re- 
quired of all inhabitants over eighteen years of age, 5 and 
now, in 1648 6 and 1650, 7 additional clauses were added to 

1 B. F. Johnson, Founding of Md., 32. 

3 Ibid., 95- 

8 Archives, Council, 1636^67, 164, 173. 

*Ibid., 180, 181. 

6 Archives, Assembly, 1637-64, 40. 

• Archives, Council, 1636-67, 196. 

''Archives, Assembly, 1637-64, 304. This oath provided that the 
affiant be true and faithful to the proprietor; that he would protect 
and maintain his lordship's interests and privileges; that he would 
make known any plots or conspiracies to the proprietor ; that he would 
accept no lands in Maryland from the Indians but subject to the use 
of the proprietor ; and would take no lands from any one by purchase 
or otherwise, except where legal title came from the proprietor. 



The Suffrage in Maryland. 57 

these oaths. During this period the famous act of toleration 
of April 21, 1649, was passed. 1 

But neither the act of toleration nor the stringent -oaths 
could keep the province in Baltimore's control. Interests in 
England and the colony were working against him; and 
when, in September, 1651, the English Council of State ap- 
pointed a commission to reduce all the plantations on Chesa- 
peake Bay, one of the four commissioners was the William 
Claiborne who had already caused so much trouble to the 
colony ?J. After settling affairs in Virginia the commission- 
ers turned their attention to Maryland, where on March 29, 
1652, they issued a proclamation from St. Mary's calling 
an assembly, but limiting the suffrage in the election for 
burgesses to those who would promise to be faithful to the 
commonwealth as established in England. 3 Governor Stone 
and his council agreed to this declaration, but two years 
later, under directions from Baltimore, Stone issued writs 
in the proprietor's name, and, when the commissioners pro- 
tested, he appealed to arms, 4 but was soon overcome by the 
Puritan forces. The commissioners thereupon issued com- 
missions to ten persons to care for the peace and administra- 
tion of justice in place of the proprietors, the governor, and 
council. 5 In this commission occurs the first formal exclu- 
sion of Catholics from political activity. The ten commis- 
sioners are instructed, 

"Alsoe that they Sumon an Assembly to begin on the 20th day of 
October Next. For which Assembly all Such Shall be disabled to give 

1 For this act see " The Foundation of Maryland and the Origin of 
the Act Concerning Religion of April 21, 1649," by B. F. Johnson, in 
Md. Hist. Soc. Fund Pub., 1883, No. 18; and Church and State in 
Early Maryland, George Petrie, Johns Hopkins Univ. Studies, 10th 
Series, No. 4. 

2 McMahon, Md., 204. 

3 Archives, Council, 1636-67, 271. The electors must subscribe the 
following engagement: "We whose names are Subscribed do promise 
and engage our selves to be true and faithful to the Commonwealth of 
England as it is now established without King or House of Lords." 

*Ibid., 300 ff. 

* Ibid., 311. 



58 Thi Franchise m the English Colonies. 

any Vote or to be Elected Members thereof as have borne arms in Warr 
a gai: irliiment Of doe profess the Roman Catholick Religion." 1 

An assembly summoned in accordance with this provision 
met in October, [654, and in its first act gave recognition 
fa i the 1' 'sp wer in Maryland, directed that no change 

could Ik.* made in the government except by order from 
the rr.itcct.tr. and required all persons in express terms 
wii their subjection to the present government. 2 Those 
speaking and acting against the government, 
were to be considered offenders against the Protector. The 
re pr e ssi ve measures were successful and the Catholics appear 
to have refrained from voting. 8 The assembly showed its 
anti-Catholic feeling by repealing the religious liberty act 
649 and passing another which declared Catholics with- 
out the protection of the laws, while it permitted freedom 
of religion to other Christians. 4 

t, Council. 1637-67, 313. 

Assembly, 1637-64, 339. 
When two burgesses from St. Mary's refused to subscribe to the new 
agreement, urging their former oath to Baltimore, they were refused 
in the house. A new election resulted in the unanimous choice 
of two delegates who were ready to take the oath (ibid.). The una- 
nimity in the election shows how well the policy of repression was 
working. 
' '• An act Concerning Religion." 

"It u Enacted and declared in the Name of his Highness the 
Lord Protector with the consent and by the authority of the 
present General Assembly. That none who profess and Exer- 
M the Popish Religion Commonly known by the Name of 
the Roman Catholick Religion can be protected in this Prov- 
ince by the Lawes of England formerly established and yet 
unrepealed nor by the Government of the Commonwealth of 
■tlnnd, and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto 
belonging Published by his Highness the Lord Protector, but 
are to be restrained from the Exercise thereof, Therefore all 
and Ever) person or persons concerned in the Law aforesaid 
required to take notice 

fesfl faith in God by Jesus Christ (although 

differing in Judgment from the Doctrine worship & Discipline 

publickly held forth shall not be restrained from but shall be 

the profession of the faith) & Exercise of their 



The Suffrage in Maryland. 59 

Pending a decision by Cromwell upon the rights of Balti- 
more, the latter commissioned a new governor for Mary- 
land, 1 and drew up an agreement for the surrender of the 
province to him, 2 but instructed his governor to require an 
oath of allegiance and submission from all taking out land 
warrants. 3 These promises and instructions were discussed 
between Governor Fendall and the Cromwellian commis- 
sioners, 4 and the latter insisted upon a number of changes in 
them. As finally adopted 5 the agreement bound Baltimore 
to make no question concerning the acts of officials during 
the late years ; fees and taxes arising during the period were 
to be paid, and the old oath of fidelity was not to be pressed, 
the people, however, engaging to submit to the proprietor's 
authority. A special provision was inserted prohibiting any 
political disqualifications on account of the late disorders. 
It was agreed 

" That no person whatsoever within this Province shall (by reason 
of Any Act or Passage made or don in relation to the late Alteration 
of the Government made in the yeare one thousand Six hundred 
fifty-two) bee deemed or hereafter made vncapable of Electing, or to be 
Elected to all future Assemblies." 6 

By these provisions the Protestants and the anti-proprietary 
party hoped to shield themselves against any return of per- 
secution upon themselves. All were expected to assent to 

Religion so as they abuse not this liberty to the injury of others 
The disturbance of the publique peace on their part, Provided 
that this Liberty be not Extended to popery or prelacy nor to 
such as under the profession of Christ hold forth and practice 
Licentiousness." 

See Md. Hist. Soc. Fund Pub., No. 7, 91-3, for treatment of Catholics. 
x July 10, 1656. Archives, Council, 1636-67, 323. 

2 Nov. 30, 1657, ibid., 332. Baltimore promised that he would not 
question any of the recent offences, never repeal the act for liberty of 
conscience, but would permit those who had been in opposition to take 
up land in accordance with earlier conditions, and would not interfere 
with those desiring to leave the province within a year's time. 

3 Archives, Council, 1636-67, 335-39. 
'Ibid., 369. 

5 On March 24, 1657-8, Archives, Assembly, 1637-64, 369. 6 Ibid. 



60 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

dement, and those who refused to agree were, 
rnor'fl proclamation, to be proceeded against as 

it i- QOt necessary for our purpose to enter into the details 
of the strange conspiracy of Baltimore's governor, Fendall, 
which came shortly after this settlement, except to notice 
thai an incidental result was the disfranchisement of those 
ed in it.- This disfranchisement may have been the 
\plicit statement of the power of the sheriff 
in elections, which was made in the spring of 1661. In 
to a protest from the lower house, the governor and 
cil said that the sheriffs had the right to restrain those 
not legally qualified from voting or from being elected to 
office, and that no one having committed a crime could be 
ted. 1 
The period from 1649 to *66i was one of great con- 
fusion in Maryland. The proprietary dues were onerous to 
the colonists, and his religion must have been obnoxious to 
many of them. In the contests which arose in the colony, 
the differences were not settled at the polls, but by physical 
force. Hence, in order to maintain in the elections what 
force had gained, it was often necessary to introduce politi- 
cal disfranchisement, and this is the principal characteristic 
of the period. The victorious party disfranchised its oppo- 
nents, and then had the pleasure of witnessing unanimous 
elections. 4 Before restoring the colony to Baltimore, the 
Prote<tants exacted a promise that they should not be dis- 

1 Archives, Council, 1636-67, 352-3. Among those refusing to sign 
the agreement were some Quakers. 

1 For the principal facts of this period, see Browne, Maryland, the 
History of a Palatinate, 93-103. See Archives, Council, 1636-67, 
404-418, for cases of disfranchisement. Three members of the assem- 
bly who had joined Fendall were debarred from public office for seven 
1 rendered incapable of electing or being elected to any future 
assembly unless the governor should pardon them. Fendall and Gerrard 
ntted to keep their property, but were forever disfranchised 
(ibid., 406. 407). A later attempt was made to elect Fendall to the 
legislature {Archives, Council, 1671-81, 192). 

* At, scmbly, 1637-64, 395-98. 

'See the election of 1654. previously mentioned. 



The Suffrage in Maryland. 61 

franchisee! for their late conduct. The period closes with 
the Fendall conspiracy and new political punishments. 

The next change in the suffrage was upon a totally differ- 
ent basis. The religious restrictions were not revived until 
1688, but the new movement was for a property qualification 
upon voters. It has been seen upon what a broad basis the 
early suffrage rested; and during all the period of civil 
strife no effort appears to have been made to restrict the 
suffrage to freeholders or those holding a certain amount of 
property. Writing in 1666, George Alsop could say re- 
specting the assembly, 

" These men that determine on these matters for the Republique are 
called Burgesses, and they commonly sit in Junto about six weeks, 
being for the most part good ordinary Householders of the several 
Counties, which do more by a plain and honest Conscience than by 
artificial Syllogisms drest up in gilded Orations." 1 

A conflict of interests between the freeholders and the 
landless freemen is first evident from the records in 1666, 
when the project for a general cessation of tobacco planting 
was under discussion. The price of tobacco had fallen so 
low that it was proposed to unite Maryland, Virginia, and 
North Carolina in a general agreement to restrict the pro- 
duction of their great staple. The lower house opposed this 
suggestion of the council upon the ground that it would have 
a tendency to drive out the greater part of the population, 
and thus deprive the province of the strong young freemen. 2 
The upper house rejoined that there was no place to which 
the freemen could go, since Virginia also would cease tobacco 
production; but even if they should leave, they might 
thereby strengthen the position of the freeholders, and the 
council protested they would not keep the freemen if they 
must thereby ignore the welfare of the freeholders. The 
freeholders, the upper house continued, " are the Strength 
& only Strength of this Province, not the Freemen. It is 
their persons, purses, & Stocks must bear the Burthen of the 
Government, both in Peace & War & not Freemen, who can 

1 A Character of the Province of Maryland, London, 1666; reprinted 
in Md. Hist. Soc. Fund Pub., 1880, No. 15, 47. 
2 Archives, Assembly, 1666-76, 44 ff. 



Franchise m the English Colonies. 

:v abandon Is." ' These reasons convinced the lower 

house, and after " takeing them into their serious Considera- 

lebateing thereupon" they replied that they " doe rest 

:." - The proprietor, however, disapproved of this 

law, in Spite of the assent of Virginia and North Carolina, 

that it would hurt his majesty's customs and would 

injure the poor settlers of the province who had so recently 

d by the assembly.' 1 

The assembly of 1666 had ignored the economic rights of 

the poor freemen, hut shortly afterwards a further step 

them was taken by the refusal to permit them to 

the political privileges they had enjoyed since the 

fi binding 1 .1" the colony. The movement towards a restricted 

was taken up by the governor, and on December 

iS. 1070. a proprietary writ directed the sheriffs to admit as 

electors only those freemen of the counties who possessed a 

visible seated plantation of at least fifty acres of land, or 

owned a visible personal estate of forty pounds at the least. 

The same qualifications were imposed upon deputies. 4 

kwes, Assembly, 1666-76, 47. 
' Ibid 

mncU, 1636-67, 561. 
*// 

" These are to authorize and require you to call together this 
prest month of december four or more of the Commissioners 
of your County with the Clerk whom you are hereby required 
to irnpo as a Court and during their sitting by Virtue 

your Office to make or Cause to be made publick Proclama- 
tion thereby giving notice to all the freemen of your said 
County who [have] within the said County Visible seated Plan- 
tations of fifty Acres of Land at the least or Visible personal 
:ates to the Value of forty Pounds Sterling at the least re- 
quiring them to appear at the next County Court to be holden 
County at a Certain day in the month next fol- 
lowing after such Proclamation made for the election and 
I 0! Deputies and Delegates to serve for your said 
County in a General Assembly shortly after to be called by 
writ at which time and place according to the said 
nation the said freemen so required to appear or the 
uch of them as -hall thereupon appear shall 
and may and are hereby Authorized and required to elect and 



The Suffrage in Maryland. 63 

About the same time the settlement at St. Mary's was 
given separate representation; the mayor, recorder, alder- 
men, and common council having the right to elect the two 
delegates from the city. 1 This corporation franchise was 
used in Maryland by the governors in the same way as the 
kings used the borough elections in England. Charles Cal- 
vert, writing to his father the proprietor, on April 26, 1672, 
describes the manner in which the new city privileges could 
be taken advantage of by the proprietary party. 

"M r - Nottly is now Speaker of o r Assembly, hee and M*- John 
Moorecraft beinge Chossen Burgesses for the Citty of St. Maries, And 
by that Meanes I gott him into the Assembly, Though Doctor Wharton 
bee a good vnderstandinge Man yett D r - Morecraft is much more for 
our purpose, being the best Lawyer in the Country, and has alwayes 
been (vpon other Assemblyes) A great Asserter of yo r LoPP s Charter 
and the Rights & priviledges thereof, I durst not putt itt to an Election 
in the Countyes Butt took this way which I Knew would Certainely doe 
what I desired." 2 

The limitation of political power was carried a step farther 
in 1674, when the assembly passed a law requiring grand 
jurors to be chosen from the freeholders of the respective 
counties. 3 

In 1675 tne proprietor, Charles Calvert, came to the prov- 
ince, and in the spring of the next year issued writs for the 
election of four deputies from each county to the assembly, 4 
apparently retaining the property qualifications as laid down 
in 1670. After the elections had been completed, the pro- 
prietor summoned only two of the four elected delegates 
from each county. The assembly thus constituted protested 
against the action of the proprietor in refusing to summon 

choose four several sufficient freemen of your said County 
each of them having a visible seated Plantation of fifty Acres 
of Land at the least or a Visible personal Estate of Forty 
Pounds Sterling at the least within your said County." 

1 Mereness, Maryland as a Proprietary Province, 200. 

2 Maryland Hist. Soc. Fund Pub., Calvert Papers, 264. 

3 Archives, Assembly, 1666-76, 392. 

4 Ibid., 507 f f . ; Council, 1671-81, 127-140 ; Council, 1687-93, 102-103. 



64 Tki \g€ Franchise in the English Colonies. 

the other deputies, and petitioned him to admit to the assem^ 

bly as manv deputies as the writs directed should be elected 

county. The proprietor acceded to this request upon 

condition that the members of assemblies should take an 

allegiance to the proprietor before they elected their 

mme left the province shortly after the meeting of 
tnbly, and in the following fall the heavy taxes and 
the limitations upon the suffrage were criticised in a paper 
h the proprietary party called a seditious document 
ed " under the specious pretences of the preservation of 
The Liberties of the ffreemen of this Province." 2 An at- 
tempt at armed rebellion by some sixty inhabitants of Cal- 
vert County on Sunday, September 3, 1676, failed, and on 
the following day a general pardon was proclaimed. 3 The 
grievances of the rebels were the heavy taxes, the poll-tax 
which required poor freemen to pay as much as the rich, and 
the terms of the proprietary writs which excluded poor free- 
men from the suffrage. 4 

The governor and council replied to the charges of the 
rebels in " a Remonstrance of the true State of the Province 
the causes & reasons of the publique Taxes." 5 They 
placed the necessity for the heavy taxes upon the Indian 
wars and the expenses for protection, and justified the equal 
poll-taxes by the argument that poor freemen were compelled 
to pay for themselves alone, while the rich were taxed for all 
their servants and slaves. Their answer to the charge of 
restricted suffrage was more elaborate, and as expressing 
the seventeenth century theory of representation and suf- 
:e is worth quoting entire: 



Assembly, 1666-76, 507. 
Wj Council, 1671-81, 127. 
% Ibid., 128. Four named persons were outlawed. This movement 
should be compared to the Bacon Rebellion in Virginia. 

The ideas of the protest are not expressed in the clearest 
words : " the debarring of some ffreemen who have nothing to entitle 
them to a being in this Province, from voting in the Choice of Dele 
gates for makeing of the Laws." 
1 il jo. 






The Suffrage in Maryland. 65 

"As to the votes of ffreemen who have neither lands nor 
visible personall Estate, in the Eleccon of Delegates for the 
Assembly wee doe say, that as the Lord Proprietary can call 
assemblys by his Patent whensoever & in what manner to him 
shall seeme most fitt & convenient, Itt is no wonder that he 
should chuse this as the fittest & most convenient manner, & 
most agreeable to the Lawe and Custome of England For what 
man in England can be admitted to the Election of Parliament 
men that hath not a visible Estate in lands or Goods? nay are 
there not infinite numbers concluded [sic] in Parliament with- 
out vote in the Elections, though they have great Estates both 
in lands & Goods? As namely all unmarryed women be their 
Estates in lands never so great, & all bothe men & woman 
living out of Corporations, haveing no Estates in land be their 
Personall Estates never so considerable This we say so to the 
point of reason & law. But if itt be thought an unkinde way 
of preceeding with the poore ffreeman, or that the ffreeman be 
dearer To the ffreeholder then himselfe his Wife children & 
fortune, & that they will needs Submitt themselves & all that 
is deare to them to be disposed of by the votes of the ffreemen 
that have nothing, & that can as easily carry themselves out of 
the reach of Lawes by themselves made, to the prejudice of the 
ffreeholder as change their Cloaths Wee doe promise to pro- 
pound the case of the indigent ffreemen to his LordPP att his 
returne & to offer him such reasons & motives as may incline 
him to permitt the next Election to be made by the Votes of 
all the ffreemen indifferently, this is all that lyes in our powers 
to doe in this case, & this we doubt not but to Obtaine from his 
Lordshipp, if the quiett demeanour of the ffreemen in the in- 
terim doe but concurr with our Endeavours, to Oblige his Lord- 
shipp to have a favorable regard of their Interests." 

The view given in this proclamation is the one we have 
seen advanced ten years earlier and gradually gaining 
strength. Two years after the armed attempt to withstand 
this restricting tendency, the suffrage limitation was estab- 
lished by law. The assembly of October and November, 
1678, after discussing elections and the suffrage at consid- 
erable length, passed the first general election law of the 
province. 1 The act remained in force but a short time, being 

1 Archives, Assembly, 1678-83, 24-37 passim. The records of this 
session are badly mutilated, and it is difficult to discern the respective 

5 



66 Thi Franchise in the English Colonies. 

l»y the pr« iprietor in 1681 ; ■ but its terms were 
in part inserted into the proprietary writs and copied almost 
itim in the election law of 1692. 2 For these reasons 
the proi 1 the act of 1678 have a value not implied 

hv the short duration of the act itself. Although the act 
sely the forms prescribed in the proprietary writ 
I it met with Baltimore's disapproval, perhaps 
because it was passed in an assembly not organized accord- 
ing t.> 1 5, and because it placed the number of dele- 
at four from each county. 3 
In its preamble the act 4 reverts to the English custom, 
lares the "best rule for this Province to follow in 
Electing such Delegates & representatives is the presidents 
[precedents] of the Proceedings in Parliament in England 
the Constitution of this Province will admitt." 
The act provided for the election of four burgesses in each 
county and two citizens from the city of St. Mary's. A 
form of election writ is given in the act, and within the writ 
r the qualifications for the suffrage. The sheriff is 
directed 

l»y vertuc of your office to make or Cause to be made Publick 
Proclamacon thereby giveing notice to all the freemen of your said 
County who have within your said County a freehold of fifty acres 
of Land or a visible personall Estate of forty pounds starling att 
least Requireing them to appeare att the next County Court ... at a 
tine day ... for the electing and Chusing of Deputyes and dele- 
:o serve for your County in a Generall Assembly. ..." 

two representatives for the city of St. Mary's were to 
y the mayor, recorder, aldermen, and common 

My and council. Apparently the council wished to 

retain the qualification " seated" pertaining to the elector's freehold, 

which had been included in the proprietary writ of 1670; while the 

"Pposed this. The upper house finally agreed to the 

word (ibid., 31). 

1 By proclamation of June 27, 1681, Archives, Council, 1671-81, 378. 

See post. 

uticil. 1671-81, 378; Assembly, 1684-92, 79. 
' An act directing the manner of Electing and Summoning Dele- 
gate i-resentatives to serve in succeeding Assemblyes." Ar- 
ly. 1678-83, 60 ff. 



The Suffrage in Maryland. 67 

council of that city. Delegates were to possess within the 
county represented the qualifications required of electors. 
No sheriff or under-sheriff could sit in the lower house during 
his term of office, and no ordinary keeper could be elected 
or serve in the assembly while keeping an ordinary. The 
property qualifications of this act were later adopted by the 
proprietor and by subsequent legislatures, and in the form 
of fifty acres of freehold or forty pounds personal estate 
they continued with but slight change down to the Revolu- 
tion. 

Lord Baltimore expressed his disapproval of the election 
act of 1678 in a public proclamation, by which he changed 
the number of delegates for each county from four to two ; l 
and shortly afterwards, on September 6, 1681, he fixed the 
electoral process by means of a proprietary ordinance. 2 In 
the preamble to this ordinance it was stated that the method 
of assembling the deputies of the freemen had, from the 
foundation of the province, been uncertain, and that the 
proprietor now desired to settle the minds of the freemen 
and establish a sure foundation for the future peace of the 
province. The ordinance gave the form of writ containing 
the suffrage qualifications in exactly the words used by the 
statute of 1678; it provided, however, for the election of 
but two delegates in every county or any corporation having 
the charter right to elect deputies, and fixed the same prop- 
erty qualifications for voters in the cities or towns as for 
those in the counties. The promulgation of this ordinance 
led to a long contest in the following assembly, but the upper 
house supported the legality and propriety of Baltimore's or- 
dinance. 3 The assembly of 1683 also took up the matter, and 
three bills concerning the election of delegates were intro- 
duced, but apparently they failed to receive the proprietor's 
approval. 4 Thus during the period 1 670-1 689 proprietary 
ordinances or writs were the foundation, under the royal 
charter, for the suffrage and the representative system. The 



1 Archives, Council, 1671-81, 378. 

2 Ibid., 1681-86, 15-17; McMahon, History of Maryland, 443~5- 
8 Archives, Assembly, 1678-83, 345-360 ff. 

4 Ibid., 445-604 passim. 



68 Tki Franchise m the English Colonies. 

filial writ of 1670 were accepted by the leg- 
l with but slight change, and these changes 
ated into the ordinance of 1681. 

I thirty years of religious quiet in the colony, 
: faction and religious strife again appeared in 
the train of similar conditions in England. As the Puritan 
ent in England sent its waves of influence into the 
Maryland, so the Revolution of 1688 was re- 
1 in miniature in America. It was unfortunate for the 
e of Maryland that in 1688 the proprietor was not pres- 
ent in person in the colony, and that the administration was 
in the hands of the council acting under a president 1 as 
depfl mors. The assembly meeting in the fall of 1688 

began with factional disputes. The president asked both 
houses to take the oath of allegiance to the proprietor, and 
when the lower house refused to do so, he prorogued the 
assembly and in the meantime exercised his legal right to 
administer the oath to the deputies as individuals. 2 Assem- 
bling after the prorogation, the lower house drew up a list 
of eight grievances against the proprietary government, 
ling largely with economic evils. Among these were the 
proprietor's demand for quit-rents in money when he had 
raised to receive them in tobacco; the failure to establish 
- : the collection of illegal fees; the meeting of the pro- 
vincial court in the inconvenient winter time; and the ar- 
persons without stating the cause of the arrest. 3 
There is no mention in these grievances of any violation of 
real religious or political rights; they are mainly adminis- 
trative details which proved unpopular. 

The following year a stronger opposition to the govern- 
ment was shown. The proprietor's agents in Maryland took 
ii" ^teps to proclaim the new monarchs of England, and this 
delay gave strength to rumors of Catholic plots and con- 
acies with the Indians. 4 An association of the discon- 

1 For the character of President William Joseff, see B. C. Steiner, 
The Protestant Revolution in Maryland, Amcr. Hist. Assn. Rept., 1897, 
283-287. 

.'v, 1684-92, 148-63. 
1 /£>»</., 170. 

D this period, see Browne, Maryland, the History of a Pala- 









The Suffrage in Maryland. 69 

tented was formed called " An Association in arms for the 
defense of the Protestant religion, and for asserting the right 
of King William and queen Mary to the province of Mary- 
land, and all the English dominions." 1 Coode, the leader 
of the movement, and his men marched on St. Mary's, com- 
pelled the president and council to surrender, and required 
the exclusion of all Catholics from office. 2 The leader then 
sent writs for an election by the Protestants of members to 
a convention, the writs being issued in the name of " the 
several commanders, officers, and gentlemen associated in 
arms for the defense of the Protestant religion." 3 The 
elections of deputies were carried through very irregularly; 
in one county it was claimed that only twenty persons par- 
ticipated in the election and one-half of these were not legally 
qualified. 4 In other cases the " better sort of the people" 
held aloof, those of mean and humble position alone sup- 
porting Coode, while drunken soldiers helped the cause of 
the revolutionists. 5 One writer said, 

" They have assumed the power of calling an Assembly the Election 
of which was in most Countyes awed by their souldiers, one County 
disowned their power and would chuse noe members but in fine they 
have packed up an Assembly after the most irregular manner that 
ever was knowne. . . ." 8 

The convention thus elected held perhaps five sessions during 
the next two years, 7 at one of which they appointed a rep- 
resentative committee composed of two persons from each 
of ten counties to administer the government. 8 



tinate, 149-156; B. C. Steiner, The Protestant Revolution in Mary- 
land, passim; F. E. Sparks, Causes of the Maryland Revolution of 
1689, J. H. U. Studies, XIV. 

1 McMahon, 237 ; Browne, 152; Steiner, 299-306. 

2 Archives, Council, 1687-93, 107. 

3 McMahon, 240. 

4 Archives, Council, 1687-93, 154. 

5 Ibid., 114-118. 
8 Ibid., 124. 

7 Steiner, op. cit., 345, 351. 

8 Ibid., 326, 333~4- 



\fhrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

In man) details the movement in Maryland closely 

that which took place at the same time in New 
i this difference, however, that in the royal 
\cw York the revolution was unnecessary from 
the Crown's point of view, while in Maryland the uprising 
e the new monarchs an opportunity to seize control of a 
;e proprietor might justly be suspected of 
ndship for the Catholic cause of James II. William 
nnally recognized the revolution in Maryland, 1 and later 
lg« of it to establish a royal government in the 
iv. The overturning of the proprietor's government led 
to the exclusion of Catholics from all political power; they 
had iit» share in the election of the convention, which was 
the nominal seat of authority for over two years, and they 
luded from all military and civil offices. 
It was but natural that Baltimore's political privileges 
should be declared forfeited 2 and a royal government ap- 
pointed for the colony. Governor Copley's commission 3 
directed him to call assemblies of the freemen of the province 
rding to the usage of the province, but required the 
delegates to take the oaths and test enjoined by the acts of 
Parliament, thereby excluding Catholics from the assembly. 
Nothing was said, however, about restraining the Catholics 
from voting. The instructions to Copley in plain terms 
limited the suffrage to freeholders: 

You -hall take care that the Members of the Assembly be elected 
by Freeholders as being most agreeable to the Custome of Eng- 
land :.. which you arc as near as may be to conform yourself." 4 

I he first assembly under the royal government met in 

May and June, 1692, and at once the question of the oaths 

The election committee of the lower house had a 

number before it ,: arising out of election irregulari- 

uncil, 1687-93, 167. 

'June 27, 1601. Archives, Council, 1687-93, 263. 
t t Council, 1687-93, 271. 
Assembly, 1684 <j.\ 254. 



The Suffrage in Maryland. ji 

ties and refusals to take the oaths ; it reported Colonel Codd 
disqualified because of seditious practices, and of John 
Hewitt it said that, " being a man in sacred orders is 
thought not fitt to sitt as a member of the Lower house." * 
The assembly early took up the subject of elections, and an 
act regulating them was sent from the lower house and 
agreed to by the upper house apparently without debate. 2 
This law, entitled " An Act directing the manner of Ellects 
and summoning Delegates and Representatives to serve in 
succeeding assembly es," 3 gave definite statutory form to 
elections and the representative system, both of which had 
previously rested upon the w T rits and ordinances of the pro- 
prietor. The legislature reverted to the old act of 1678 in 
organizing the elective system; the new act was almost a 
literal copy of the earlier law. The preamble was the same, 
the property qualification was unchanged, and the number 
of delegates from each county was restored to four, as it had 
been before the proprietor's ordinance of 1681. The pro- 
hibition upon the sheriffs or under-sheriffs serving in the 
lower house was, however, removed, but that against ordi- 
nary keepers was retained. In agreeing to this measure with 
its personal property qualifications the governor acted con- 
trary to his instructions, which we have noticed directed 
him to see that freeholders only should vote for assembly 
delegates; but he may have felt warranted in doing this 
owing to the twenty years of colonial practice preceding his 
administration. No restriction is placed upon Catholics by 
the act, and it is likely that they were now or shortly after- 
wards permitted to vote, 4 although the oaths required of 
officeholders would exclude them from political positions. 
Later acts, indeed, attempted to prevent the growth of 

1 Archives, Assembly, 1684-92, 359. Hewitt, after being informed of 
the action of the committee, was requested to give the house a sermon 
on the following day, being Sunday (364). 

2 Ibid., 394. 
'Ibid., 541. 

* See terms of act of 1718, post. Mereness, Maryland, 200, says Catho- 
lics were disfranchised from the beginning of the royal government, 
but I have found no evidence of this exclusion. There can be no doubt 
that they voted before 1718. 



7_' The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

tholkism by imposing a fine of fifty pounds upon popish 

uld baptize Protestant children or hold mass 

in the province, and sentenced such priests to banishment if 

they were found teaching school in the province; x but there 

formal exclusion of Catholics from the suffrage until 

a century after the Protestant Revolution. 

The act of 1692 continued in force about twelve years, 

and in the fall of 1704 it was displaced by a new election 

law. This new act made some slight changes in the electoral 

machinery, but it retained the qualifications for voters as 

had previously existed; again the sheriffs were directed 

nut to the suffrage " all the freemen of your said County 

whu have within your said County a freehold of fifty acres 

of land « >r a visible estate of forty pounds sterl. at the least." 2 

An act of 1708' 5 apparently did not make any change in 

the -nffrage requirements. 

Governor Nicholson, the second of the royal governors, 
removed the seat of government to Annapolis, perhaps to 
avoid the Catholic influence at St. Mary's; and later, in 
B, the new capital was incorporated as a city, taking the 
place of St. Mary's. 4 The charter of Annapolis at first 
limited the suffrage for assembly delegates to the mayor, 
recorder, aldermen, and common councilmen, as had been 
done in St. Mary's; but the lower house of assembly ob- 
jected to this, and even questioned the power of the governor 
to erect municipal corporations. When the lower house ex- 
pelled the Annapolis members on these grounds, the governor 

'Chap. 59 of 1704. given by title only in Bacon's Laws, but in full 
in Acts of Assembly Passed in the Province of Maryland From 1692 
to 17 1 5, London, 1723, 24. For the position of the Catholics from 
1690 to 1718, see Shea, Catholic Church in Colonial Days, 344-373. 
An act of 1715 (Ch. XXXVI, Bacon's Laws), for various purposes and 
prevent the Importing too great a Number of Irish Papists into 
Province," laid a duty of twenty shillings on Irish servants coming 
ryland. See also acts of 1717, Ch. 10, and 1732, Ch. 23. 
* Chap 35 of 1704. given by title only in Bacon's Laws; but writ 
Riven in Bishop, History of Elections in American Colonies, 251. 
1 Chap. 5 of 1708. 

Maryland, 167; Mereness, Mary land, 200 ; McMahon, 251- 
253. 



The Suffrage in Maryland. 73 

replied by a dissolution of the assembly. But the corporation 
officers and inhabitants petitioned the governor to change 
the charter so as to extend the suffrage to the inhabitants 
of the city, and this request was granted. 1 An act of assem- 
bly subsequently confirmed and explained the charter granted 
by the governor. 2 The charter as amended gave the right 
to vote for the two city delegates in assembly to freeholders 
owning a whole lot of land with a house thereon, to all in- 
habitants (householders?) having a visible estate of twenty 
pounds, and to those who had served a five years* appren- 
ticeship to a trade within the city, had held their freedom 
for three months, and were actual housekeepers and inhabi- 
tants of the city. 3 In the same year, 1708, St. Mary's lost 
its right to send deputies to the assembly. 4 Thus in Mary- 
land, as in many of the other colonies, the borough suffrage 
was wider than that granted to inhabitants of the country 
districts. In this case the freehold qualification was changed 
from fifty acres to a town lot, the personal property test 
became twenty in place of forty pounds, and householders 
who had served an apprenticeship in the city could vote, no 
matter how small an amount of property they held. 

In 171 5 the election law was changed somewhat when 
the whole body of laws of the colony was revised. The act 
of June 3, 1715, 5 , retained the fifty acres and forty pounds 
clauses, but required electors who voted under the personal 
property clause to be residents of the county. Ordinary 
keepers were again excluded from the assembly, and the 
disqualification was extended to persons who by the laws of 
England would not be qualified to sit in Parliament. The 
most interesting of all the additions made by this law 6 to 
the provisions of the earlier act of 1692 is one for the im- 
posing of fines upon non-voters. All freeholders, freemen, 

1 Mereness, Maryland, 200-1, 420-22. 

2 Bacon's Laws, 1708, Ch. VII. 
'McMahon, Maryland, 255. 
"Ibid. 

5 Chap. 42, 1715. Acts of Assembly Passed in the Province of Mary- 
land from 1692 to 1715,, London, 1723, 121. Given by title only in 
Bacon's Laws. 

"Not having access to the laws of 1704 and 1708, I cannot be sure 
that these changes were first introduced in 171 5. 



Tin- Suffrage Franchise m the English Colonies. 

is qualified to vote were subject to a fine of 
one hundred pounds of tobacco if they neglected to attend 
the elections, unless they gave a sufficient reason for absence 
to the county court. The features of this law were adopted 
in full in 1716? when a new law directed that election writs 

lid run in the name of the proprietor instead of the 
king's, and with this slight change the act of 171 5 continued 
without alteration until after the Revolution. 2 

The year 1 71 5 saw the restoration of the province to the 
proprietor after his acceptance of Protestantism. 3 The first 
embly under the proprietor, in 1716, passed "An Act 
for the 1 fetter Security of the Peace and Safety of his Lord- 
ship's Government, and the Protestant Interest within this 
province." 4 This act required all persons admitted to posi- 
tions of trust in the province to take the oaths of allegiance, 
of abhorrency, of abjuration, and the disavowal of the belief 
in transubstantiation in the forms prescribed in the English 
Statutes. 6 The Maryland act on this subject was closely 
similar to those passed in other colonies immediately follow- 
ing the Jacobite uprising of 171 5, and hence was not pecu- 
liar. But two years later a special act directed at the Catho- 

was passed. This was in the form of a supplement to 
the election act, and again revived the disfranchisement 
policy which was first adopted in the days of the common- 

Ith. Section III of this act provided for a disfranchise- 
ment of the Catholics, which was unrepealed in 1776. 

1 Bacon's Laws, 1716J Ch. XI. 

• With the exception of the act of 1718 concerning Catholic electors, 

no further legislation upon the suffrage. An act of 173-2 

Laws, 17^2, Ch. V) for preventing bribery in elections in 

Annapolis was disapproved by the proprietor. Another act of 1769 

1769, Ch. X) shows how long the polls might remain 

open. It provided that in Baltimore County the elections for delegates 

iboald be open for not more than four days in Baltimore-town, and 

then to be adjourned to Bush-town, where they might remain open 

during four more da 

• lict Leonard, Lord Baltimore, 1714-15, had, before his suc- 
cession to the title, publicly renounced Catholicism. 
m'a Laws, 1716, Ch. V. 
1 1 George I, Ch. 13. 



The Suffrage in Maryland. 75 

" III. And whereas notwithstanding all the Measures that have been 
hitherto taken for preventing the Growth of Popery within this Prov- 
ince, it is very obvious, that not only profest Papists still multiply and 
increase in Number, but that there are also too great Numbers of 
others that adhere to and espouse their Interest, in Opposition to the 
Protestant Establishment: And being under just Apprehensions (from 
what steps they have already taken) that if Papists should continue to 
be allowed their vote in electing of Delegates, they, with their Ad- 
herents, and those under their Influence, will make such a Party at the 
Elections of many of the counties within this Province, as well as the 
City of Annapolis, as to determine the Choice in some, of their great 
Favorites and Adherents, which if they should accomplish, how much 
it would tend to the Discouragement and Disturbance of his Lord- 
ship's Protestant Gov't, is not easy to imagine . . . therefore ... be 
it Enacted . . . That all profest Papists whatsoever, be (and are 
hereby Declared) uncapable of giving their Vote in any Election of a 
Delegate or Delegates within this Province, either for Counties, Cities 
or Boroughs, unless they first qualify themselves for so doing, by 
taking the several Oaths appointed to be taken by an act of Assembly 
of this Province [1716, Ch. V] . . . and subscribe the Oath of Abjura- 
tion and Declaration therein mentioned." * 

In order that no Catholic might elude the terms of the act, 
the election judges were authorized to administer the oath 
to " any person suspected to be a Papist or popishly inclined" 
whenever the judges saw fit, or when demanded by a quali- 
fied voter. A saving clause protected Quakers from suffering 
with the Catholics. 

An act disfranchising the Catholics at as late a period as 
1 7 18 could have but scanty justification. There had indeed 
been some Jacobite sympathizers in Maryland who had com- 
mitted indiscretions, 2 but this was not sufficient warrant for 
excluding all Catholics from voting. Neither were the num- 
bers of the Catholics alarming, for in 1708 only 2974 Cathd- 
lics were found by the sheriffs in a total population exceeding 
40,ooo. 3 The words of the act itself justify its provisions 
upon the grounds of the recent growth of Catholicism, and 
the fear of discouragement and disturbance of Baltimore's 

1 Bacon's Laws, 1718. 

2 Browne, Maryland, 208. 

a Johnson, Founding of Maryland, etc., Md. Hist. Soc. Fund Pub., 
No. 18, 167. 



j6 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

; nment. But these phrases are so vague that 
they throw little light upon the motives of the assembly. It 
may be that the newly restored proprietary family desired 
how the strength of their fresh Protestantism by positive 
linst the Catholics, 1 or that the inhabitants of the 
. ince wished a guarantee against the return of the Catho- 
to political power through a future conversion of Balti- 
more to Catholicism. The members of the sect which was 
ponsible for the original settlement of the province were 
now disfranchised, their religion was outlawed, while even 
the proprietor was estranged from them and now gave his 
nt to laws for their persecution. 

There is little to be said concerning the suffrage in local 
elections. By far the greater number of local officials were 
appointed, either by the county court, by the governor, by 
of the legislature, or by self -perpetuating boards. In 
[649 and 1650 acts were passed for the election of local tax 
assessors in the several hundreds of certain counties, 2 but 
this policy was not continued. In the cities of St. Mary's 
and Annapolis and the towns the officers in all but two in- 
stances were either self-perpetuating bodies or appointed by 
other officials. 3 Practically the only elective local officials 
were the officers of the parish, — the vestrymen and the 
church wardens. By the church act of 1692 4 the county 
courts were to call to their assistance the " most principal 
holders" of the counties, and arrange the bounds of par- 
es. In each parish the freeholders were to elect six vestry- 
men, but after the first election the vestry could fill vacancies 
in their own number from the freeholders of the parish. Ten 
years later some changes were introduced. An act of 
►vided that two of the six vestrymen should be 
elected annually by the inhabitants of the parish who were 

MeMahon, 279-281. In note 3, p. 281, McMahon describes the 
social ostracism which was added to the political disfranchisement of 
the Catholics. 

: Archives, Assembly, 1637-64, 238, 298. 

:h-sv, Maryland, 419, mentions two cases of elective town 
offia 

fftj Assembly, 1684-92, 4_ 
•Bacon' 701-2. Ch. I. 



The Suffrage in Maryland. 77 

freeholders within the parish and contributed to the public 
taxes and charges of the parish. The act permitted the 
electors to determine which vestrymen should be retired, 
and provided for the election of the church wardens by the 
vestry and freeholders. A later act * provided for a regular 
rotation in the office of vestryman. Throughout the colonial 
period the vestry elections were more limited than the suf- 
frage for the assembly; in the former elections only tax- 
paying freeholders could vote, while in the latter freeholders 
of fifty acres or owners of forty pounds personal estate were 
entitled to the franchise, and in Annapolis the suffrage in- 
cluded many, if not all, householders. 

The representative system and the suffrage in Maryland 
are based in the first instance upon the royal charter to Bal- 
timore. The terms of this charter were ambiguous, and in 
practice in the colony for almost forty years a most liberal 
interpretation was given to them. Manhood suffrage, with- 
out regard to residence, the payment of taxes, the holding 
of land, or any other qualifications, was exercised in the 
early years of the colony. Those that were not free, i.e., 
slaves and servants, were the only men excluded. In these 
early years an interesting system of proxy voting arose, and 
the assembly, somewhat like that of Rhode Island at almost 
the same time, alternated from pure democracy to represen- 
tation of local units. This early manhood suffrage gave way 
in 1670 to the requirement that voters should possess fifty 
acres of land or an estate worth at least forty pounds ster- 
ling. This qualification, although based upon the proprietary 
writs until 1692, was later adopted by the provincial legisla- 
ture, and was the only property qualification which the prov- 
ince of Maryland knew throughout its entire history. For 
over one hundred years it was the test required of all voters 
except those in Annapolis. The borough franchise was ex- 
tended to St. Mary's and Annapolis; in the former it was 
limited to the officers of the corporation, while in the latter 
practically all householders were privileged to vote for as- 
semblymen. An act of 171 5 imposed a fine of one hundred 
pounds of tobacco upon qualified freemen who did not take 

1 Bacon's Laws, 1730, Ch. XXIII. 



78 Tht franchise in the English Colonies. 

nd this provision remained unchanged 
until the Resolution. 

The most marked feature of the suffrage in Maryland is 
the attitude towards the sect which had founded the colony. 
In [654 they were excluded from the suffrage and office; 
in in [689 the revolution temporarily disfranchised 
them, and after the restoration of the province to Balti- 
more the Catholics were, in 1718, permanently excluded 
from political rights. There were practically no local elec- 
> iu the colony other than the vestry elections, and in 
K the suffrage was more limited than in the assembly 
5, the franchise being restricted to inhabiting free- 
holders who paid parish taxes. 






CHAPTER IV. 
The Suffrage in North Carolina. 

North Carolina, like her southern sister, passed through 
the two stages of proprietary and royal control, exchanging 
in 1728 the doubtful blessings of wide independence under 
a weak government for the exasperating restraint of royal 
instructions and peevish or incompetent governors. The 
history of the colony varies from an absence of political 
control which encouraged personal license to a measure of 
arbitrary actions and attempted coercion which fostered 
popular rebellion. Like a spoilt child the colony expressed 
its satisfaction with the weak rule of its proprietor parents, 
and, unlike South Carolina, the transfer of the government 
from proprietary to royal control found its main initiative 
in England rather than in the colony. When the southern 
colony was overthrowing the proprietor's officials and pro- 
testing against the inadequacy of their government, the in- 
habitants of the northern country expressed their utter detes- 
tation of such revolutionary proceedings, and wrote to the 
proprietors that they were " intirely easy and satisfied under 
their Lordships Government." 1 

The extremes of liberty on the one hand and of arbitrary 
government on the other are noticeable not only in the quit- 
rent and currency questions and other matters of an eco- 
nomic nature, but also in the constitutional subjects of the 
suffrage and representation. After a period of extensive 
local control of these questions under the proprietors, the 
colony found itself, during the time of the royal government, 
at the mercy of the king's prerogative and the royal veto, 
which on one occasion were so used that they would have 
thrown the whole colony into the greatest confusion had not 
the governor wisely, but in contradiction to his instructions, 

1 Colonial Records of North Carolina, II, 375. 

79 



8o The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

withheld from the people the knowledge of the royal veto. 1 
PeriuUM in no other colony was the veto power used against 
such important and popular measures as here in North Caro- 
lina. While in South Carolina there is practically no break 
in institutional development by the transfer of the govern- 
ment to the Crown, in North Carolina the change was accom- 
panied by many interferences with the established laws and 
ins. Thus the story of the suffrage in this colony falls 
nctlv into two parts, in the first of which the proprietors 
place few restrictions upon their colonists, and in the second 
the elective and representative systems are controlled by the 
English government and its governors in North Carolina. 

I. Under the Proprietary Government, 1 663-1 728. 

The basis for popular suffrage in North Carolina, as in 
the other proprietary colonies except New York, is to be 
found in the royal charters to the lords proprietors, the first 
of which is dated March 24, 1662-3. It was, indeed, ante- 
dated by the charters to Raleigh 2 and Sir Robert Heath, 3 
but only the latter possessed any provision for popular par- 
ticipation in the government, and both were abrogated by 
the Carolina charters of 1663 and 1665. So, too, a few 
land grants had been made and a few settlers from Virginia 
had come into the Albemarle country before the Carolina 
patents were passed under the royal seals, 4 but among these 
earliest settlers we have no record of political organization. 
Thus the political clauses of the charters to the eight pro- 
prietors may be quoted as the basis of the suffrage in Caro- 
lina. The charter of 1663 5 gave to the proprietors full and 
absolute power 

" to ordaine, make, enact, and under their seals to publish any laws 
whatsoever, either appertaining to the publick state of the said province, 
or to the private utility of particular persons, according to their best 

See post, for the repeal of the representation and suffrage acts in 
and Governor Dobbs' withholding this knowledge for a time. 
" Poore, Charters and Constitutions, II, 1379-1382. 
■Jf.C Col. Rcc.,1, 5-13. 
'Ibid., 14-17. 
% Ibid., 20-33; Poore, Charters and Constitutions, II, 1382-1300. 



The Suffrage in North Carolina. 81 

discretion, of and with the advice, assent and approbation of the free- 
men of the said province, or of the greater part of them, or of their 
delegates or deputies whom for enacting of the said laws, when and as 
often as need shall require, we will that the said . . . [eight proprie- 
tors] and their heirs shall from time to time assemble in such manner 
and form as to them shall seem best, and the same laws duly to 
execute. ..." 

The second charter to the eight proprietors, dated June 30, 
1665, 1 gave the patentees the right to erect and constitute 
counties, baronies, and colonies within their province, having 
distinct jurisdiction and privileges, and in each one to make 
and enact laws in a manner similar to that established by the 
first charter. Both charters used the word freeman in first 
describing the voters, but both referred subsequently to as- 
semblies of the freeholders, and thus here, as in Maryland, 
led to a confusion in the political practice under the charters. 
We shall see the later interpretation put upon the word. 

The proprietors proceeded almost at once to promise to 
intending settlers the various privileges in popular govern- 
ment which the charter had directed should be granted to 
colonists. In August, 1663, some New Englanders proposed 
settling in Carolina, and asked that they be given the New 
England privilege of levying taxes " upon themselves by 
themselves." 2 In the same month the proprietors issued 
proposals to settlers, 3 in which they promised the under- 
takers in England that they might name thirteen persons 
from whom the proprietors should select one for governor 
of the colony and six for his council, and that a similar nomi- 
nation and selection should be made every three years by 
the freeholders of the colony or their representatives. To 
this liberal method of choosing the higher officials the pro- 
prietors joined a promise of a popular legislative body elected 
by the freeholders. 4 

" We shall, as far as our charter permits us, empower the major part 
of the freeholders, or their deputies or assembly-men, to be by them 

1 N. C. Col. Rec, I, 102-114; Poore, Charters and Constitutions, II, 

I390-I397- 

2 Ibid., 38. 

3 August 25, 1663 ; ibid., 43-6. 

4 N. C. Col. Rec.,l, 45. 

6 



\ge Franchise m the English Colonies. 

, y/.. : two out of every tribe, division, or 
h, In .such manner a* shall be agreed on, to make their own laws, 
id with the advice and consent of the Governor and council;" 

wich laws be not repugnant to the laws of 
land, and that within one year they be presented to the 
; ir their ratification. Religious liberty was also 
promised to the settlers, and each man was given the privi- 
lege of taking up one hundred acres of land for himself, fifty 
ch fully armed man-servant, and thirty acres for 
each woman-servant that he brought to the colony. 

These proposals were sent to certain intertding settlers 
who had suggested that they be erected into a corporation 1 
with the privilege of choosing a mayor and other officers. 
The proprietors speak in favor of their more democratic way 
of government set down in the proposals, which, they say, 
" we hold to be better for the people in Generall then the 
Corporation way that you demand, in which the members 
ehoasen to manage the Government doe continew for there 
lives, and are not to be removed but by there owne fellowes 
or the Major parte of them, whoe may be apter to wincke at 
the misdemeanors of there fellow Governors then the people 
that are to be governed by them will." 2 According to the 
plan of the proposals, the lords continue, it will be in the 
er of the people every three years " to leave out such as 
have misbehaved themselves'' in making their nominations 
for new officers to the proprietors. The same readiness to 
it popular government is to be seen in the paper sent 
by the proprietors in England to the only one of their num- 
dent in America, in which they empower proprietor 
Sir William Berkeley, governor of Virginia, to appoint one 
two governors of Carolina and a council of six persons 
each governor. 3 These governors and councillors, "by 
and with the advice and consent of the freeholders or free- 
men <.r the Major parte of them, there deputyes or delli- 
\ ere einpt >wered to make good and wholesome laws 
the better government of the colony or colonies. Thus, 

C. Col Rec. I, 43. 

* Ibid., 58. 
'Ibid., 48-50. 



The Suffrage in North Carolina. 83 

in the earliest history of their province, the lords proprietors 
show no reluctance to fulfil the terms of their charter re- 
quiring a representative legislature. 

A considerably more pretentious scheme of government 
was outlined in January, 1664-5, as part of an agreement 
between the Carolina proprietors and some intending settlers 
in England, Barbadoes, and New England, headed by Major 
William Yeamans. 1 With the many interesting details of 
these " Concessions and Agreement" we are not here con- 
cerned, although it may be noted that they are in many 
particulars exactly the same as the concessions granted by 
Berkeley and Carteret, two of the Carolina proprietors, to 
settlers in their other province of New Jersey. 2 The new 
agreement again looked to the establishment of several dis- 
tinct governments, or " countyes," as they are called in the 
document, and provided for a representative assembly in 
each, elected by " the inhabitants being freemen or chief 
agents to others of ye countyes" aforesaid. 3 Much more 
liberal grants of land were made by this agreement of 1665 
than by the earlier one of 1663, to the end " that the planting 
of the Countyes afores d may bee the more speedily pro- 
moted." 4 

Throughout all this early period the terms freeman and 
freeholder are used interchangeably, as has been noted in 
some of the other colonies. The royal charter had used the 
words synonymously, and the proprietors had merely re- 
tained the ambiguity of the charter when they directed in 
the concessions that elections should be by the freemen and, 
in another place in the same document, by the freeholders. 
There seems no question that the early suffrage was usually 
limited to freeholders, but later the identity of the two classes 
was lost, and in the period 171 5-1 734 the class of freemen, 
as in Maryland and South Carolina at an earlier date, was 
held to be wider than the class of freeholders. 5 

Another important feature of this early constitution- 

1 N. C. Col. Rec., I, 75-92. 

2 See New Jersey Colonial Archives, I, 28-43. 

*N. C. Col. Rec, I, 81. 

'Ibid., 86. 

6 See post, act of 1734. 



84 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

m:i !, ecu in the attempt of the proprietors to divide 

r province into distinct colonies. This policy was 
ngthened by the difficulties of communication between 
them and southern parts of the province, and by the 
oommerdal association of the north with Virginia and the 
nomic independence of the south. These facts made the 
ultimate division of the province a probability, but the pro- 
prietors looked forward to several, perhaps eight, distinct 
principalities within their grant. This is seen in their first 
instructions to Governor Berkeley; it is frequently men- 
ed in their concessions of 1665; distinct governments 
e I umally permitted by the second royal charter of 1665, 
and the early policy of the proprietors continually encour- 
1 the settlement of distinct groups of emigrants under 
independent governments. 1 It was not the fault of the pro- 
prietors that their province did not contain several rather 
than only two governments; had the various proposed or 
attempted settlements succeeded, there would have been more 
than two Carolinas. As it was, the policy of the proprietors 
accorded well with the geographical and economic separation 
of the two successful colonies, and made a separation that 
was almost inevitable come without acrimony on either side. 2 
Political organization in the Albemarle lands, already 
populated by settlers from Virginia, begins shortly after the 
granting of the royal charter. A general assembly, in a 
letter written in June, 1665, 3 is referred to as having sent 
a petition to the proprietors. William Drummond, the first 
ernor of the county, promises the commissioners of Mary- 
land and Virginia that he will call a meeting of his council 
and " committee" to consider the cessation of tobacco-plant- 
>ome time between July and October, 1666, this 
committee," or assembly, met and passed a law restricting 



, I, 48-50; 75-92 passim; 102-114 passim; and 
v-xv; III, 574. Compare the division of New Jer- 
sey into two sections. 

the excitement attendant upon the separation of the Delaware 
Counties from the province of Pennsylvania. 
'Ibid., 101. 
4 (bid., 142. 



The Suffrage in North Carolina. 85 

the planting of tobacco. 1 In the same year in another colony 
to the southward, on the Cape Fear River, an assembly of 
fourteen persons sent a formal and elaborate petition to the 
proprietors. 2 But of these early assemblies in Albemarle 
and Clarendon Counties we know little. Unfortunately, we 
do not possess for North Carolina those personal details of 
politics and elections which are so interesting in the early 
history of South Carolina. Only by obscure references do 
we know that these assemblies have met; they have left no 
formal record either of their elections or of their acts as 
representative bodies. 

When the proprietors commissioned a new governor for 
Albemarle County in October, 1667, they appear to have 
been contented with the outline of government and land 
policy given in their concessions two years earlier, for the 
principal features of the concessions are repeated in the in- 
structions to the new governor, Samuel Stephens. 3 But 
this comparatively simple form of government was soon 
displaced, at least in the minds of the proprietors, by the 
aristocratic and elaborate features of the Fundamental Con- 
stitutions. Setting aside the details of palatines, landgraves, 
and cassiques, of seigniories, baronies, and colonies, and of 
courts baron and leet, we notice in the Constitutions for the 
first time a clear definition of the suffrage and office-holding 
qualifications. The " First Set" of the Constitutions, con- 
taining one hundred and eleven sections, dated July 21, 1669, 
has been published only recently. 4 It begins with the well- 
known statement that the Constitutions are established in 
order that " ye governmt, of this province may be made most 
agreable unto ye monarchy under wch. we live, & of wch. 
this province is a part, & yt we may avoid erecting a numer- 
ous democracy." Thus the provisions of the charters re- 
quiring a popular representative body were to be carefully 

*N. C. Col. Rec, I, 152. 

2 Ibid., 145-149. The Cape Fear -settlement was doomed to failure. 
See N. C. Col. Rec, I, Prefatory Notes, x; 149-151, 157-159, 177-208; 
McCrady, History of South Carolina under the Proprietary Govern- 
ment, 79-93. 

3 Ibid., 165-175. 

4 Collections of South Carolina Historical Society, V, 93-117. 



g6 Thi \ge Franchise in the English Colonies. 

I by the establishment of hereditary landed aris- 

Thc Constitutions contained, however, a number of 
tionfl dealing with elections. A parliament was to be 
med out of the nobility and representatives of the free- 
holders, elected biennially, and the qualifications of members 
and electors were specified: 

" There shall be a Parlia mt consisting of ye proprietors or their 
deputyes ye landgraves and cassiques & one freeholder out of every 
presinct to be chosen by ye freeholders of ye sd. presinct respectively. 
They .shall sit alltogether in one roome, & have every member one 
vote." 

" No man shall be chosen a member of Parliamt. who hath lesse then 
five hundred acres of freehold within ye presinct for wch. he is chosen, 
nor shall any have a vote in choosing ye sd. member, yt hath lesse y n 
fifty acres of freehold within the said presinct." ■ 



Other officers also elected by the freeholders were registers, 
constables and their assistants, and the common councilmen 
of incorporated towns. The possession of fifty acres did not 
have the same restrictive force in preventing a " numerous 
democracy" which a similar qualification would have pos- 
sessed in England with its large tenant population. Any 
free man, in accordance with the concessions of the pro- 
prietors, could easily obtain more than sufficient to qualify 
him for the suffrage. There were three things required of 
the intending occupant of land: (i) that he acknowledge 
the existence of a God and that God is publicly and solemnly 
to be worshipped; (2) that he promise allegiance to the 
king, faithfulness to the proprietors, and obedience to the 
Fundamental Constitutions; (3) that after 1689 he pay a 
quit-rent of one penny an acre for all the land he occupied. 2 
In the " Second Set" of constitutions, of March 1, 1669- 
70. the suffrage and representative features were the same as 
those in the first set. 3 A still later frame called the " Fifth 

1 Collections of South Carolina Historical Society, V, no. 
1 Ibid., 115-116; later changed to a half-penny an acre. 
'N. C. Col. Rcc, I, 187-205; Poore, Charters and Constitutions, II, 
:4o8; Statutes at Large of South Carolina, I, 43-56. 






The Suffrage in North Carolina. 87 

Set," in 1698 divided the parliament into distinct houses for 
the nobility and the representatives of the freeholders re- 
spectively, and changed somewhat the qualifications of 
voters. 1 The provisions were as follows : 

"6. There shall be a Parliam* consisting of the Proprietors or their 
Deputyes by themselves the Landgraves & Cassiques in ye Upper House, 
And the Freeholders out of every County to be chosen by ye freehold- 
ers of y e said Countyes respectively together with ye Citizens and Bur- 
gesses to be Elected by ye Cittys & Borroughs (which shall be here- 
after Created), in y e lower House." 

" 9. Noe person shall be capable of giving his voyce for the Election 
of a Member to serve in Parliament that is not actually possest of 
acres of land and is a Householder, & has a family and whose reall & 
personall Estates does not amount to pounds." 

A qualification such as the latter, it will be seen, would be 
equivalent to a decided limitation upon voting. Under it 
no bachelors could vote unless they were heads of families, 
and no freeholder unless his freehold was of a stated size 
and his whole estate of a certain value. In New Nether- 
lands it was the custom for the governor to call together the 
heads of families, and in some cases in the Middle or New 
England Colonies the town suffrage was practically limited 
to such; but the usual borough requirement that the voter 
be an inhabitant or householder was not a direct exclusion 
of unmarried men. The proposition of the Carolina pro- 
prietors is an unusual one in its formal limitation of the 
suffrage for the colonial assembly to men who were heads of 
families. 

Considerable uncertainty exists as to the exact legal 
position of the Fundamental Constitutions in North Caro- 
lina. There can be no doubt that they never were in force 
in South Carolina, but proof is not lacking that they were 
established in the northern colony. In a most interest- 
ing paper delivered by the assembly to Governor Burrington 
in 1732, it is stated that " in the Province of North Carolina 
(tho' not in South) the People received" the constitutions 
of 1 669,2 an d it is intimated that the set of 1698 was also 

*N. C. Col. Rec, II, Appendix, 853-854- 
'Ibid., Ill, 452. 



88 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

L 1 [t is highly probable that certain features of the 
8, particularly those relating to popular elections 
and concerning land matters, were accepted by the settlers, 
while the more elaborate provisions for a landed nobility, a 
Ik .u^c of lords, and feudal serfdom were simply ignored. 
We have, indeed, an explicit statement of the assembly in a 
law of [699 that the sections relating to biennial parliaments 
•d by the community, 2 and in 1725 the governor 
writes that an assembly must " be chosen and meet according 
Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina as you well 
know." 8 Thus the truth about these much disputed con- 
stitutions seems to be that they were in toto formally ac- 
cepted by the people of North Carolina, but that in reality 
only the sections which fitted the economic and political 
needs of the settlement were put into execution. 4 In North 
lina the important question respecting the constitutions 
is not whether they were adopted by the people or not, but 
the extent to which their clauses were actually enforced. It 
would be an interesting task to determine, by a careful in- 
spection of the later laws, how far the colonial constitution 
and legislation were influenced by the proprietors' constitu- 
tions. It seems to the writer that the result would show a 
surprisingly large portion of the constitutions incorporated 
into the provincial customs and laws. 5 

During a period of fifty years following the first assembly 
of 1665 we have no record of the actual restrictions imposed 
upon the suffrage; and one cannot be sure that the simple 
freehold qualification of the constitutions of 1669 or the 
more elaborate provisions of the set of 1698 were ever en- 
forced. It has been found impossible to determine whether 
these suffrage clauses of the constitution were among the 
chosen subjects or among those ignored by the assembly 
and people. From Governor Carteret's commission in 1670 
down to that of Governor Johnson in 1702, the proprietors 

1 -V. C. Col. kec, III, 453- 
'/Ml; also III, 574 
' Ibid., 526. 

* Ibid., I, Prefatory Notes, xvii. 

'See Governor Burrington's remarks on all the laws of 1715, N. C. 
Col. A\v. Ill, 180-189. 



The Suffrage in North Carolina. 89 

seem bent on establishing their constitutions ; but they admit 
the lack of the requisite nobility, and they can only urge 
the governors " to come as nigh" as possible to the frame, or 
to select its " most expedient" parts for execution. 1 Unfor- 
tunately, no law respecting the suffrage previous to 171 5 
has been found, so that we cannot tell how near the colonial 
legislation approached to the terms of the constitutions. 

In reality the suffrage during these fifty years must have 
been upon a very precarious basis. In this period five or six 
governors or presidents acting under proprietary authority 
were driven out of the country by force ; 2 two formidable 
insurrections took place ; and for years at a time it could be 
said that no lawful government existed in the colony. Under 
such circumstances it is in vain to look for regular election 
methods. It is not to be supposed that agitators like Cul- 
pepper or Cary looked carefully to see that their adherents 
possessed exactly the number of acres requisite to admit 
them to the franchise; and, on the other hand, the records 
show that the established authorities did not scruple to ignore 
formal qualifications for the suffrage. For instance, in 1677 
we find President Miller charged with " making strange 
limitations for y e choyce of y e ParliamV 3 and denying a 
" free election of an assembly." 4 And his opponents, meet- 
ing in a riotous manner, cursed king, proprietors, and land- 
graves, and proceeded to elect an assembly out of their 
number, making their drummer one of its members. 5 

From 1 68 1 to 1708 the colony had comparative quiet. 
In the former year the proprietors attempted to establish a 
general legislature for the entire province of Carolina, 6 made 
up of representatives from both the northern and southern 
counties; but the governor exercised the discretion vested 



1 See Governor Carteret's commission, N. C. Col. Rec, I, 181-183 ; 
President Harvey's instructions, ibid., 235-239; Governor Wilkinson's, 
333~338; Governor Archdale's, 389-390; Governor Johnson's, 554-555. 

2 N. C. Col. Rec, II, Prefatory Notes, x-xi. 

'Ibid., I, 287. 

* Carroll, Historical Collections of South Carolina, II, 336. 

6 N. C. Col. Rec, I, 272, 297, 299, etc. 

e Instructions to Governor Ludwell, ibid., 373-380. 



go Thi Franchise in the English Colonies. 

in him ! to continue the legislative separation of the two 
the province. A court record for December 9, 
S that Governor Archdale used no more exact 
I than " inhahitants" when he described the electors in 
the county of Bath. 2 Shortly after this, laws for biennial 
1 mblies were passed by the assembly, 3 but I have found 
no reference to any suffrage provisions they may have con- 
tained. 4 A later governor said the terms of the election law 
of 1715 were drawn from earlier proprietary constitutions, 6 
but Burrington's word is too scanty evidence to warrant 
our projecting the qualifications of 171 5 back to 1697. On 
the other hand, an election writ issued by Governor Daniel 
about 1703 grants the suffrage to all the freeholders of the 
precinct, 6 but this, too, cannot be taken as conclusive evi- 
dence of the restriction of the suffrage to landholders. 

1 Additional Instructions, N. C. Col. Rec, I, 380-381. 
■ Ibid., 47-'. 

" Ordered that writs be issued out to the several precincts 
of the County of Albemarle, for electing five Burgesses for 
each Precinct to meet at the House of Thomas Nicolo, the 
eighteenth Day of January next." 

" Ordered that a writt be issued out to the Inhabitants of the 
County of Bath to make choice of two Burgesses to sit in the 
Grand Assembly to be holden at the House of Thomas Nicolo 
the eighteenth Day of January next." 

of 1697 and 1699. These acts are only indirectly referred to 
at a much later date (N. C. Col. Rec, III, 453). 

*Acts with similar titles were passed in South Carolina in the years 
1692 and 1696-7, of whose provisions we have some idea. See post. 
. C. Col. Rec, III, 180. 
rth Carolina Historical and Genealogical Register, III, 136. 
the Honble Landgrave Robt Daniell Esqr Lieutent Gen- 
erall Vice Admirall & Deputy Governor and the rest of the 
Lords Proprietors Deputies. 

•' Whereas Caleb Bundy Jeremiah Symonds Augustine Scar- 
borough & John Hawkins Chosen Burgesses for this present 
Assembly for yor Precinct of Pascotank have refused to take 
the Oaths appointed by Law These are in the Name of his 
ellency the Palatine & the rest of the true & absolute 
Lords & Proprietors to will & require you to Sumons all the 
Freeholders in yor precinct to meet at the usuall place for 



The Suffrage in North Carolina. 91 

The civil dissensions aroused by Colonel Cary in 1708, 
and lasting almost five years, brought the inevitable inter- 
ference in elections. Again we are told that " boys and 
otherwise unqualified" persons voted in elections, that the 
candidates receiving a majority of votes were not recog- 
nized, 1 and that the rabble was treated to " good liquor, 
rum, and brandy." 2 In January, 1716-17, a missionary, 
himself not in the best repute, 3 wrote to England that " the 
fundamental constitutions were intended to be unalterable, 
but now as little regarded as Magna Charta in England, this 
Lawless people will allow of no power or authority in either 
Church or State save what is derived from them. A pro- 
prietor were he here would be looked on no better than a 
ballad singer." 4 

A few years after the Cary Rebellion had been suppressed 
the assembly provided for a general revisal of the laws of 
the province, and in this manuscript revision of 171 5 is to 
be found the earliest extant election law. It is entitled " An 
Act relating to the Bienniall and Other Assemblies and Reg- 
ulating Elections and Members." 5 The preamble states that 
the proprietors have considered the customs of England, and 
have sought to apply to their province those immunities 
which will encourage its settlement, among which " the fre- 
quent sitting of Assemblies is a principal safeguard of their 
peoples Priviledges." The act proceeds to empower " the 
freemen of the respective precincts" of the County of Albe- 



Electing Burgesses on or before the day of next 

Ensuing then and there to Elect & Chuse four prudent & Sub- 
stantial! men Freeholders of yor precinct to be Burgessses in 
theire Roome for yor precinct to meet at the House of Capt. 

John Hecklefield in Little River next ensuing to 

advise & assent to such matters as for the weal Publick shall 
be most necessary. ..." 

*N. C. Col. Rec., I, 696. 

2 Ibid., 915. For short sketch of these troubles, see S. B. Weeks, 
Religious Development in the Province of North Carolina, Johns Hop- 
kins Univ. Stud., X, 290-302. 

8 He was indicted for drunkenness, N. C. Col. Rec, II, 401. 

*Ibid., 271. 

5 Ibid., 213-216. 



92 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

marie to meet every two years and elect five freeholders to 
rqm ell precinct, and the " inhabitants and freemen" 

each precinct in any other county to choose two repre- 
ss. The act then limits the words " freemen and 
inhabitants' 1 by imposing an age, a racial, and a tax-paying 
qualification, in the following words: 

nd it is hereby further enacted by the Authority aforesaid that no 
hatsoever Inhabitant of this Government born out of the 
Allegiance of his Majesty and not made free no Negro Mulatto or 
Indians shall be capable of voting for Members of Assembly and that 
no other person or persons shall be allowed to vote for members of 
Assembly in the Government unless he be of the Age of one and 

ty years and has been one full year resident in the Government 
and has paid one years Levy proceeding the election." 

Further provisions required each voter to bring a ballot 
called a " List," containing the names of those he voted for, 
and to subscribe his own name, or cause it to be done before 
the election marshal, and the latter officer was empowered to 
administer an oath respecting their qualifications to all per- 
sons who, by the marshal or any candidate, were thought to 
be unqualified. The method of returning the results of the 
election was fixed; penalties were to be imposed upon offi- 
cers neglecting their duty or members refusing to serve ; and 
the oaths of allegiance, supremacy, abjuration, and any 
others taken by members of the English Parliament, were 
to be administered to all members. A quorum was to consist 
of not " less than one full half of the House." 

The act of 171 5 certainly meant to distinguish between 
freemen and freeholders; and while the royal charter had 
apparently used the two words synonymously, the legislature 
under the term " freemen" now admitted all those tax-payers 
ite who were white male subjects of Great Britain and 
Lent at least one year in the province. And the tax-payer 
in North Carolina need not be either a land-holder or a slave- 
as was the case in South Carolina. While in the 
latter colony land and slaves were almost the sole objects of 
taxation! in North Carolina the poll-tax was practically the 
only form of taxation. Thus every white male over sixteen 
years was tithable, and consequently, if he had paid his taxes 



The Suffrage in North Carolina. 93 

and was of age, was eligible to vote. 1 In this respect the 
laws of North Carolina were more liberal than those of any 
other colony in 171 5. 

Since 1670 the only unit of representation in the province 
had been the precinct, but in 171 5 provision was made for 
the representation of towns, a feature which was to be de- 
veloped until North Carolina had a larger number of towns 
represented in her assembly than any other colony outside 
of New England. Chapter LII of the laws of 171 5 gave 
to the town of Bath the right to elect a representative when 
it should have a population of sixty or more families, 2 and 
also extended the same privilege to any other town when it 
should attain the required population. 3 In time several 
towns obtained the right to send representatives, and it was 
thought best to define the franchise in these towns by formal 
act of the legislature. Accordingly, in 1723, a supplement 4 
was passed to the election law of 171 5. This act provided 
that the suffrage franchise in any town in the government 
was to be limited, first, to freeholders of " saved" lots in the 
towns who kept constantly in repair a house or houses ; and 
secondly, to tenants of any houses in the towns who had paid 
poll-tax for the preceding year; but freeholders were ex- 
pressly forbidden to vote in virtue of any house tenanted by 
a tax-paying voter. The burgess from such a town must be 
an owner of a " saved" lot therein, which he had held for 
eighteen months preceding and on which he maintained a 
habitable house. By a " saved" lot was meant one for which 
the owner had performed all the duties necessary for him 
to preserve its ownership ; duties which usually included the 
erecting of a house of a prescribed size and height, with 

1 N. C. Col. Rec, II, Appendix, 889. By this act of 1715, taxables 
were free males over sixteen years of age, or slaves, male and female, 
over twelve years. Subsequent laws provided that taxables should be 
white males over sixteen years of age, and all blacks (free or slave) 
over twelve years. (Davis, Laws, ed. of 1764, p. 202.) 

2 Ibid., V., 1 50-151. 

a Ibid., VI, 228. 

* Chapter II of 1723; given only by title in Davis, Laws (1751), 53, 
but in full in Bishop, History of Elections in the American Colonies, 
275. 



Franchise in the English Colonies. 

tin form of roof and chimneys, and maintaining of the 
house in habitable repair. 1 

Ear as the writer knows, there was but one elective 
DCT in North Carolina, other than the representatives in 
embly, during the proprietary period. This officer was 
the public register of land transfers, births, burials, and 
marriages, who, under the Fundamental Constitutions, was 
e appointed by the chief justice's court from triple nomi- 
nate »n> made by the freeholders of the precinct; 2 and this 
elective feature was enforced during the whole colonial 
■d. :: Apparently all the other officers in the colony were 
appointive. The vestries, under the law of 1715 and earlier 
were close corporations, filling vacancies in their num- 
ber and appointing the church-wardens; 4 the precinct courts 
were appointed by the governor and council, 5 and themselves 
in turn appointee! constables, overseers of highways, 7 pack- 
ers of tobacco, 8 and other officers; while the towns were in 
the control of self-perpetuating commissioners. 9 Still other 
officers were appointed by the proprietors directly, by the 
governor and council, or by the corporations named above. 
Thus, excepting the local registers, the suffrage during this 
period was limited to the popular representatives in the 
assembly. 

In conclusion, it may be said that the suffrage during the 



ring provisions, see Davis, Lams (1751), 62-65, 92~ 
94, 09-101, 103-108, 210; .V. C. Col. Rec, II, 386; IV, 43- The usual 
size of house was sixteen or fifteen feet by twenty, and occasionally a 
height of eight feet, and one or two brick or stone chimneys were also 
required Cf. Porritt. Unreformed House of Commons, I, 35. 

1 Statutes at Large of S. C. Col Rec., Ill, 185. 

ite as OctoK-r 8, 1 773, Governor Morton, writing to the Board 
of Trade, said the registers were annually elected by the freeholders 
under an old law of 1715 (A/. C. Col. Rec., IX, 691). 

4 A'. C. Col. Rec., I, 678, 680; II, 11, 207-217. 

% Ibid., II, 525-526, 540, 565, 572, etc. 

'Ibid., I, 523-5, 533, 548, 652, etc. 

'Ibid., 494-495 53i, 550, 576, 611-612, etc. 

* Ibid., 652-653. ' 

•For an illustration of these commissions, see Davis, Laws (i750»- 
62-65 



*rs 



The Suffrage in North Carolina. 95 

proprietary period was not placed upon a firm basis until 
the restoration of internal quiet and the passage of the elec- 
tion act in 171 5. The franchise begins with the confusion 
of words in the royal charter; it is given a more definite 
basis by the constitutions, but we are in doubt whether these 
provisions ever were actually enforced or not. It has been 
noted that proprietors and governors used on different occa- 
sions the words inhabitants, or freeholders, or freemen, as 
descriptive of the electing citizens; and a confusion thus 
existing in the royal charter and the governors' writs was 
not to be avoided among the common people. Particularly 
was this true in the troublous times, of which the colony 
had not a few, when private and property rights, as well as 
political privileges, were invaded by the conflicting parties. 
The quelling of the riots made possible the regular enforce- 
ment of such an election law as that of 171 5. This act, 
perhaps, as Governor Burrington later remarked, drawn 
from earlier precedents, was remarkably liberal in its pro- 
visions, in that it made the voting privilege co-extensive 
with the poll-tax upon white male citizens. After 171 5 
elections were not yet freed from indirect control by the 
governor, 1 but without doubt they were more honestly man- 
aged than heretofore. The town suffrage introduced a slight 
variation in the laws, and the period closes with an election 
law in 1727 of which we have only the title. 2 

II. Under the Royal Government, 1 728-1 775. 

The basis of the representative and elective systems in the 
royal colonies is generally said to be the commission and in- 

1 See some interesting letters of Burrington written in 1725, and 
coming to light in 1733, concerning the management of elections (N. C. 
Col. Rec, III, 526). The journal of the lower house in 1726, perhaps 
as a result of the governor's management, shows a number of disputed 
elections (ibid., II, 611). 

1 " An Act, for Regulating Towns, and Elections of Burgesses," 1727, 
Ch. II. Title only given in Davis, Laws (1751), 67. Governor Bur- 
rington said, " This Act was made for regulating the Town Elections 
of Burgesses there being three Towns in this Government that hath 
the priviledge of sending Burgesses and this Act was to adjust the 
manner of chuseing them ;" N. C. Col. Rec, III, 193. 



96 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

Btructkmfl of the royal governor for the colony. This was 
the view held by the English government and the one acted 

n in must of the royal colonies. We shall see that in 
Una the nnal instructions and vetoes almost over- 
turned the constitution as it had grown up under the pre- 
eminent, and that the people or their representa- 

3 tune and again turn away from these instructions back 

riginal charters and the Fundamental Constitutions, 

which they claimed were the true basis for the provincial 

eminent. The contest between the two began almost 
immediately after Governor Burrington, the first royal gov- 
ernor, entered upon his duties. 

According to Burrington's commission, which is similar 
to those granted in other colonies at this time, the governor 
authorized to call general assemblies of the freeholders 
and planters in a manner agreeable to the laws and customs 
of the province of North Carolina. 1 By his instructions, 
dated almost a year after the commission, he was directed 

take care that the Members of the Assembly be elected 
only by freeholders as being more agreeable to the custom 
of this Kingdom to which you are as near as may be to con- 
form yourself in all particulars." 2 It is clear that this is 
far different from the tax-paying basis for the suffrage 

Wished by the act of 171 5, and it did not take Burrington 
long to see the divergence. 

Immediately after his arrival he issued writs for the elec- 
tion of representatives, and, ignoring the old law, he fol- 
lowed the terms of his instructions by requiring the elections 
to be by the freeholders in the respective towns and pre- 
cinct-.' 1 Such a change in the election customs without any 
warning naturally led to popular opposition; the assembly 
journals show a number of disputed election cases, 4 and Bur- 
ringfo m w rote to the Board of Trade that the new writs had 
" occasioned a great deal of heat among the people," which 
" much heightened by those who love to raise a clamour 
against me." 5 

1 A'. C. Col. Rcc, III, 68; January 15, 1729-30. 

* Ibid., 93; dated December 14, 1730. 

•Ibid., 212. 

4 Ibid., 289, 301, 558, 584- "Ibid., 207. 



The Suffrage in North Carolina. 97 

Burrington's relations with the people were from the first 
unhappy, and in his quarrel with their representatives he 
tried in two ways to change the constitution of the assembly 
and have a house elected favorable to himself; first, by re- 
stricting the suffrage, and, secondly, by reapportioning the 
representatives, or, when this failed, by erecting new pre- 
cincts. Some time before September, 1731, he sent to Eng- 
land his opinions upon all the legislation between 171 5 and 
1729, 1 and said of the election act of 171 5 that it " was an 
old Law taken from one of the Lords Proprietors Original 
Constitutions and hath undergone little alteration." 2 He 
pointed out that " all Freemen are qualifyed to vote as well 
as Freeholders which is contrary to my Instructions on that 
Head." Objection was also made to the holding of elections 
by virtue of the law without any writs, since it " occasions 
a great deal of Mobbing and tumults;" and the governor 
therefore advised the repeal of the law and the holding of 
elections by the freeholders according to writs issued by the 
governor. 

From this time down to the close of his administration in 
1734, Burrington is insistent in his letters to England that 
the law should be repealed. He later found other objections 
to it. The short term of the biennial assemblies made well- 
meaning ( !) members timorous in their actions, through the 
fear that they might not be re-elected. The apportionment 
of representatives was unjust, for, said the governor, " a 
Small part of the Province have Twenty Six Representa- 
tives, all the Remainder but ten ;" and he recommended that 
four precincts which together, under the act of 171 5, had 
nineteen representatives, should be formed into only two dis- 
tricts, and each of these send two delegates. His reasons 
for such a radical change were that two precincts have 
" neither Persons fit for Magistrates nor Burgesses ;" and 
that he is of the opinion that two representatives are just as 
sufficient for precincts in North Carolina as for counties in 
Virginia. 3 He closes with the sentence, " I cant help think- 
ing we shall have more orderly Elections and more substan- 

l N. C. Col Rec, III, 180-194. 
2 Ibid., 180. 
8 Ibid., 207. 

7 



98 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

tial men chosen if none but Freeholders vote." In Feb- 
ruary, [73] 2} he writes again to urge the repeal of the 
ilia] Act, again looking forward to more orderly elec- 
3 and expecting that the members will "behave more 
ntlv" if the law were not in force. In August, 1732, the 
urd of Trade replied to his repeated suggestions that until 
the law officers report upon the Biennial Act no change 
should be made in the constitution of the assembly. 2 

But before this letter was written, Burrington had tried 
another plan by which the assembly might be made more 
subservient to his interests. In May, 1732, a new precinct 
with the right of representation was erected by the governor 
and council ; in October a second one was established, and 
this was followed shortly by a third. 3 It was claimed by 
Burrington's opponents that he had personally " earnestly 
promoted such Petitions (even forming and writing some of 
them himself)," for the erecting of the new precincts. 4 
" Where is the necessity," these leaders of the assembly ask, 
"of these divisions? these new appointments?" 5 They 
pointed to the fact that one of the precincts had not over 
thirty families of inhabitants, and " can scarce make out 
a sufficient number of People for Justices and Jury;" 6 while 
among these thirty families there were only three freeholders, 
or voters. In another precinct the number of freeholders 
was but slightly larger. The protestants picture ironically 
an election in which, since the writs permit only freeholders 
to elect, the three freeholders would control the elections, — 
" two are to stand candidates and the third to elect them." 7 

In addition to the argument that there was no necessity 
for the erection of new precincts, the petitioners protested 
that the governor had no right to create new representative 
districts, arguing that this would make the whole legislature 
subservient to a part — to the governor and council ; that it 

% N. C. Col. Rec, 111,325. 

1 Und., 355- 

1 Ibid., 417, 425, 442. 

'Ibid., 381. 

• Ibid., 452. 

'Ibid., 381. 

1 Ibid., 450. 



The Suffrage in North Carolina. 99 

was contrary to the customs of the neighboring colonies, and 
even repugnant to the king's instructions. 1 But Burrington 
could quote colonial history as well as the assemblymen. 
He pointed out that only one instance 2 was known where 
a precinct was erected by law and not by the governor and 
council, 3 and he claimed that the opposition to the new 
precincts arose from two councillors who desired popularity 
with the assembly and people. 

The governor continued sending election writs for elec- 
tions by the freeholders only, 4 and in the spring of 1733 
writs were issued to the new precincts. But in neither in- 
stance did the governor gain his point; the elections were 
not confined to freeholders, in spite of instructions and 
writs, 5 and the representatives from the new precincts were 
not permitted to take seats in the assembly. 6 The assembly 
of July, 1733, had a stormy meeting. The governor told 
them that assemblies would soon become the greatest griev- 
ance in the province if the " heat and partiality" continued. 
" Burgessing," he said, " has been for some years a source 
of lyes and occasion of disturbances, which has deterred 
good men from being Candidates or entering the lists of 
noise and Faction;" 7 " bodys of men cannot blush, and 
that's your advantage." For some reason, Burrington's next 
and last assembly showed a disposition to compromise with 
the governor, and bills were introduced to establish his new 
precincts by law 8 and to limit the suffrage to freeholders. 9 
But in the midst of the session a new governor, Gabriel John- 



*N. C. Col. Rec, III, 383-385, 574"576. 

2 The governor was in error here, as three precincts had been erected 
by act of the legislature, in addition to the act of 171 5, which had recog- 
nized the existence of all the early precincts (ibid., 453-454, 575). 

1 Ibid., 443-444. 

1 Ibid., 536. 

8 Burrington said to the assembly, " Neither doth the King's In- 
structions that only Freeholders should vote find any weight in your 
Elections tho' always inserted in the Writts" (ibid., 560). 

•Ibid., 611. 

'Ibid., 560. 

•Ibid., 640. 

• Ibid., 637. 



c -°fo 



ioo Th€ Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

arrived in the province and the work of the assembly 

ed. 1 

Governor Johnston almost immediately issued writs for 
an election of assemblymen by the freeholders of the re- 
spective precincts and towns. 2 Although the election was 
n< 4 \\ ithout irregularities, 3 yet the new assembly took up the 
: the old one, and considered a bill for repealing the 
clause of the act of 171 5 which permitted freemen to vote. 4 
The result was a restriction of the suffrage to freeholders. 5 
The preamble of the act of 1734-5 says that " it hath been 
found inconvenient for the Freemen" to vote, and that the 
royal instructions had directed that only freeholders should 
for members of assembly. The qualifications of voters 
and assemblymen were then given as follows: 

" no person hereafter shall be admitted to give his vote in any Election 
for Members of Assembly for the precincts in this Province, unless 
such person has been an Inhabitant in the precinct where he votes at 
least six months and has bona fide a Freehold in his own Right of at 
least fifty Acres of Land in the said precinct, which he shall have been 
possest of Three Months before he offers to give his vote. 

" And be it Enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That hereafter no 
person shall be deemed qualified or admitted to sit in the Assembly, 
unless he has been one full year an Inhabitant of this Province, and is 
possessed in his own Right of at least one hundred acres of Freehold 
Land in the precinct where he is Elected or Chosen." 

Thus through the persistence of the royal governors and 
the force of the English instructions the suffrage was at last 
limited to freeholders; the ambiguity of the charters and 
proprietary writs which had permitted landless freemen to 
vote was cleared away, and their evident purpose finally 
mplished. In this case, as in practically all the royal 
colonies except South Carolina, the English government 

1 .V. C. Col. Rcc, III, 643. 
•Ibid., I\ 

* Among the charges is one that some person " had stifled the writt 
lection so that due notice was not given," .V. C. Col. Rec, IV. 117. 
11S. 1 1<) 

4 Ibid., 88, 89, 97, 98, 108, 125, 126. 

4 Chapter i ; 5; title only in Davis, Laws (1751), 79, but in 

full in Bishop, History of Elections in the American Colonics, 277-27^ 



The Suffrage in North Carolina. 101 

rather than colonial opinion led to the restriction of the suf- 
frage to freeholders. It must be remembered, however, that 
the terms of this act, requiring six months' residence and 
fifty acres of freehold, did not extend to the three towns, 
where, under the terms of the act of 1723, tenants or the 
owners of untenanted houses could vote. It is remarkable, 
too, that the formal exclusion of negroes was laid aside, not 
again to be taken up until far into the nineteenth century. 

An act of the same assembly established two of the three 
precincts which Burrington and his council had tried to 
erect. 1 But Johnston was not satisfied with the suffrage 
limitations and the legal establishment of precincts. Like 
Burrington, he wrote repeatedly against the act of 1715 2 
urging many objections, but emphasizing particularly the 
inequalities in representation which it established. At last, 
on July 21, 1737, the King in Council, acting upon the 
advice of the Board of Trade, " was graciously pleased to 
declare his disallowance of the said act." 3 Yet the repeal 
of the act of 171 5 led to no immediate change in the method 
of apportionment of representatives or the manner of holding 
elections, for Johnston now issued writs calling upon the 
freeholders " to choose Representatives" without stating any 
number, and the counties continued to send the numbers 
formerly apportioned to them. 4 Fifteen years after Burring- 
ton began his attack on the law of 171 5, the precincts were 
still represented in the way which to him appeared so unjust. 5 

In 1743 6 a comprehensive election law was passed which 
contained many new features relating to the taking of the 
ballot, but it did not change the qualifications of the suffrage. 
The act provided that election inspectors to assist the sheriff 
should be appointed either by the candidates or the sheriff; 
it required the sheriff to come to the county election place 

*N. C. Col. Rec, IV, 155. 

2 Ibid., 25, 204. 

3 Ibid., 251. 

4 Ibid., 1 185; V, 87. 

8 The northern counties kept their unequal representation until 1746 
(ibid., IV, 493, 814-815), and it was restored to them by the royal in- 
structions to Governor Dobbs in 1754 (Records, V, 11 10). 

"Davis, Lauts (1751), 177-180. 



The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

" provided with a small Box, with a Lid or Cover, having 
a Hole in it, not exceeding Half an Inch in Diameter." The 

er must bring a " Scroll of Paper, rolled up," on which 
were the names of the candidates for whom he voted; the 
to take the ballot, and in the presence of the in- 
spectors put it into the box; and he and the inspectors were 
each to keep a separate list of the voters' names. The per- 

S having the greatest number of votes were to be declared 
elected, and in case of a tie the sheriff was authorized to cast 
a deciding vote. The polls were to be open from ten o'clock 
in the morning until one, and from half-past two until sun- 
L'pon the request of a candidate or any other freeholder, 
the voter might be required to take oath that he was properly 
qualified. 

The fifty acres of freehold and six months' residence were 
still required of electors, who now, as in the act of 171 5, 
were to be twenty-one years of age. A freeholder was now 
defined to be a person " who hath an Estate, Real, for his 
own Life, or the Life of another, or any Estate of greater 
Dignity." Fines were to be imposed upon unqualified per- 
sons voting, or upon qualified persons who voted twice; and 
candidates who had offered bribes or favors to electors were 
rendered incapable to sit in the assembly for which they were 
elected. The ballot features were also extended to elections 
in towns. 

We now come to the time when the apportionment contest 
reached its culmination. It is impossible to enter into all 
the details of this interesting period, but a summary of the 
events may be given. Since the days of the proprietary 
government the precincts of the north-eastern section of the 
colony called Albemarle County had each sent five members 
t< 1 the assembly ; while those of Bath County, in the south, 
sent only two each. 1 The political distinction between the 
two parts of the province in time came to be an economic 
one. We are told that imports came almost exclusively from 

1 The documents relating to the election and apportionment contro- 
v take up a large part of Vols. IV and V of the Colonial Records. 
A good short summary is given in a representation of the Board of 
Trade to the king, March 14, 1754 (Col. Rec, V, 84-91). 



The Suffrage in North Carolina. 103 

Virginia into the northern counties, 1 and by the merchants 
there were sent to the southern counties ; and that the north- 
ern merchants were forbidden by contract to pay debts in 
Virginia in any bills of exchange. 2 The southern merchants, 
on the other hand, wanted a cheap paper currency, which 
would be an advantage to them in the settlement of debts 
within the province. Hence the northern members opposed, 
and the southern members favored, a colonial currency. 
The maintenance of the existing representation in the assem- 
bly was thus a vital necessity to the north, while the attain- 
ment of equality was the political ideal of the south. The 
twenty-nine representatives from the six northern counties 
voted solidly under strong leaders, and by their number 
could break a quorum or prevent the passage of any acts 
objectionable to their constituents. 3 

As early as 1741 Governor Johnston had taken the side 
of the southern counties, and by calling an assembly at Wil- 
mington in the south he had hoped to keep away the northern 
members and have an assembly to his own taste, 4 but at this 
time he failed. He tried the same plan with somewhat better 
success in 1746. An intractable assembly meeting at New- 
bern in June, 1746, was prorogued to the following Novem- 
ber, with Wilmington as a meeting place. Here, two 

1 The title precinct was changed to that of county in an act of 1738, 
Chap. Ill (Davis, Laws (1751), p. 90). 

2 N. C. Col. Rec, IV, 1217. 

i Ibid., 863, 870, 1152-1153, 1164. 

4 Ibid., 584. In writing to the Board of Trade, December 21, 1741, 
respecting a much desired quit-rent law, he says, 

" All imaginable precautions were taken to secure the success 
of this Affair. 

" The Assembly was called in the most Southern part of 
the Province on purpose to keep at home the Northern Mem- 
bers who are most numerous and from whom the greatest oppo- 
sition was expected And some of the most troublesome leading 
men were prevailed upon to be absent. 

" By this management there were present but two Members 
more than was necessary to make a house, which then con- 
sisted of the most moderate and most sensible men of the 
Colony. ..." 



104 Thi Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

hundred miles away from the usual place of assembly meet- 

and of court sessions, at an inclement season of the 

which made it dangerous to cross ferriages from seven 

to ten miles broad, 1 the governor met, as he himself admitted, 

'" Dot much above a fourth part of the Members." 2 Eight 

members < nit of fifty-four met, admitted six or seven newly 

ted members, 8 and then proceeded to shear the northern 

counties of their political power. 

The most important act was one " for the better ascer- 
taining the Number of Members to be chosen for the several 
Counties within this Province to sit and vote in General 

sembly; and for Establishing a more equal Representa- 
tive of all his Majesty's Subjects in the House of Bur- 
ies." 4 The journals of the assembly show that the act 
was rushed through both houses in three days. 5 The pre- 
amble of the act stated that several of the northern counties 
had " assumed to themselves the Privilege of choosing Five 
Persons respectively to represent them in the General Assem- 
bly, without any Law, or Pretence of Law, to support such 
Claim;" 6 while the southern counties, which were more 
populous and contributed much more largely to the public 
taxes than the north, were given only two representatives; 
" from which Inequality great Mischiefs and Disorders have 
arisen, and the best Schemes for the Good and Welfare of 
the Province, by this Means, have been utterly defeated." 
It was then enacted that the inhabitants of each county 
already erected, or which should be erected, should send two 
persons, " and no more," to be their representatives, and the 
freeholders of the four towns of Edenton, Bath-town, New- 
hern, and Wilmington should each send one representative 
as formerly. 

This act was followed by another for fixing the seat of 
government at Newbern, passed with the same " manage- 
ment, precipitation & surprise when very few Members 

l N. C. Col. Rec, IV, 1 1 58. 

1 Ibid., 870. 

1 Ibid., 870, 1 157, 1 158. 

•Davis, Laws < [751)1 2235 N. C. Col. Rcc, IV, 1154-1155. 

• Ibid., 835, 840. 

*D; ( 1751), 223. 



The Suffrage in North Carolina. 105 

were present," as the Board of Trade wrote to the king; 
and containing such features that the governor ought not 
to have assented to it if it had been passed by a full house. 1 

Johnston made use of the new representation act at once, 
issuing writs in December, 1746, for the election of two 
members in each county. 2 The northern counties refused to 
recognize the law on which the new writs were founded, 
and insisted upon electing their old number of representa- 
tives. 3 But the assembly denied them admission, and or- 
dered new elections for two members in each county. 4 After 
this the northern counties refused to elect members, they 
denied the authority of the legislature elected under the new 
act, they paid no taxes, and for seven years were in a state 
of practical rebellion against the governor. 5 

The contest was then taken to England, both sides using 
agents to represent them before the Board of Trade and the 
other English authorities. 6 There the decision was not 
reached until 1754, almost eight years after the contest had 
begun. In the meantime Governor Johnston had erected 
new counties by law and by proclamation in the southern 
district, and thus strengthened the position of that section. 7 
Acts for emitting a paper currency and regulating quit- 
rents were also passed, 8 and Johnston thought " that more 
had been done for the Settlement and Prosperity of this 
Country within this three years. . . . [1 746-1 749] than 
ever has been done before since the foundation of the Col- 
ony." 9 Governor Johnston died in July, 1752, 10 and for 
two more years the anarchy which he had done so much to 
bring about continued its evil influence in the colony. 

The Lords of Trade sent a long representation to the 

l N. C. Col.Rec.,V, 108. 

8 Copies of writs are given, N. C. Col. Rec, IV, 1 180-1 183. 

'Ibid., 856-857, 1180-1183. 

'Ibid., 857. 

6 Ibid., 1 153; Prefatory Notes to Vol. IV, xix. 

'Ibid., 879-883, 1020, 1 158. 

"Ibid., 887-889; V, 88. 

8 Ibid., IV, 1217. 

9 Ibid., 919. 
"Ibid., 1314. 



106 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

Icing In March, 1754. reviewing the history of elections in 
the colony of North Carolina, advising the repeal of a num- 
ber oi the colonial acts, and proposing certain instructions 
Arthur Dobbs, who had already been appointed gov- 
ernor. 1 About a month later, the King in Council acted 
Ivice by repealing twenty-six of the most im- 
portant laws of the colony. 2 This remarkable action was 
taken, first, to set aside the acts of the Wilmington Assembly 
of November, 1746; and secondly, in order to clear away 
the legal basis upon which the representative system had 
rested since the proprietary period and found it solely upon 
the r<»yal instructions to the governor. 3 Among the re- 
pealed acts were five laws relating principally to land 
matters passed forty years earlier, in 171 5; twelve passed 
between 1722 and 1749, erecting counties or towns and con- 
ferring the right of representation upon them; still others 
were the elaborate election law of 1743, the vestry act of 
1741, the reapportionment act of 1746, the seat of govern- 
ment act of the same year, and others of less importance. 
It is safe to say that no colony in the eighteenth century 
suffered such a complete demolition of the legal basis of its 
representative system, election customs, church organization 
and land laws as was here accomplished in North Carolina. 
For six years after this wholesale repeal there was no gen- 
eral election law ; for ten years the vestry acts met with suc- 
cessive repeals in England; while the royal veto came into 
very frequent use from this time down to the Revolution in 
connection with quit-rent and court laws. 4 

It was the intention of the English authorities that the 
representative system and election custom should rest upon 
the royal prerogative as expressed in the instructions to the 
governors, but they wisely adopted the advice of the Crown's 
law officers that it was not " advisable for the Crown to im- 

1 A*. C. Col. Rcc, V, 81-108. 

1 Ibid., 1 1 5-1 18. 

' Ibid., 92. 

4 For repealed acts, see A r . C. Col. Rec, V, 115-118; VI, 29, 139, 327- 
328, 707, 723, 900; VIII, 266, 616; IX, 284, 287, 665. In the nineteen 
between 1754 and i/73 the royal disallowance was signified to at 
least fifty-one North Carolina laws. 



The Suffrage in North Carolina. 107 

peach rights heretofore granted & enjoyed." 1 Thus it 
happened that the new governor, Arthur Dobbs, received 
directions to restore the unequal apportionment of represen- 
tatives existing before the act of 1746, and in his instruc- 
tions 2 an assembly of sixty members was provided for, com- 
posed of five members from each of five counties, three from 
one county, two from each of fourteen counties, and one each 
from four towns. The members were to be elected by the 
freeholders of the respective counties and towns, and a 
quorum — a vital point with the northern members — was 
fixed at only fifteen, one-quarter of the whole. The gov- 
ernor was empowered to grant these rights in representation 
by charters to the respective counties or towns, and in the 
southern district he could erect new towns or counties and 
confer upon them the right of electing representatives. 3 The 
subsequent control of the elective system, the qualifications 
of electors and elected, and the apportionment of representa- 
tives was denied to the legislature in the following words : 

"And it is Our further Will and Pleasure that you do not for the 
future upon any pretence whatsoever give your assent to any law or 
laws to be passed in our said Province by which the number of the 
Assembly shall be enlarged or diminished the duration of it ascertained 
the qualifications of the electors or elected fixed or altered or by which 
any regulations shall be establish'd with respect thereto inconsistent 
with these our Instructions to you or prejudicial to that right and 
authority which you derive from us in virtue of our Commission and 
Instruction." * 

As soon as Dobbs reached the colony he saw how con- 
fusing the repeal of the fundamental laws would be, and 
despite his instructions he delayed to announce the repeal 
until after an assembly election had been held. He feared 
it would " put the Electors into confusion . . . and in the 
unsettled State of the province & their present Divisions 
wou'd have had a very bad Effect. " 5 Soon both assembly 

X N. C. Col. Rec, V, 91. 

2 Ibid., 1 1 10; June 17, 1754. 

8 Ibid., mi. 

'Ibid. 

"Ibid., 326. 



108 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

and governor were asking for a modification of the instruc- 
tions. 1 and in June, 1 755, the King in Council sent addi- 
tional instructions to Dobbs, permitting the legislature to re- 
blish by law the respective towns and counties, provided 
no grant of the right of representation was made to them. 2 
The privilege thus given was soon exercised by the assembly, 
and in 1756 acts were passed restoring the boundaries and 
internal organization of the counties and towns, without 
nting the right of representation, which the assembly ex- 
stated was the king's prerogative. 3 This right was 
Ferred in special charters granted by the governor to the 
several towns and counties. 4 

The absence of a general election law after the repeal 
in 1754 of the act of 1743 soon led to the introduction of 
election bills into the assembly, although the need might not 
seem great when only one election was held between the 
years 1746 and 1760. 5 In 1757 a bill passed both houses 
containing a provision that voters should be given an oath 
" that you will not vote for no representative, but such as 
you think best qualified and most inclined to promote his 
Majties Interest and that of this County." 6 This act the 
governor imagined was introduced by a certain Murray 
" and his Junto," " that they might make me unpopular with 
the Assembly in rejecting their favourite Bill." 7 He re- 
fused to agree to it because contrary to his instructions. 8 
In the following year the lower house appointed a committee 
of eleven members to bring in a bill for regulating elections,* 
but apparently this committee never reported. 



1 AT. C. Col. Rcc, V, 297, 301-303, 326. 

1 Ibid., 341, 352, 405-407, 415; XI, 124. 

» Davis, Laws (1764), 86; N. C. Col. Rcc, V, 645. 
C. Col. Rcc, V, 767-768, 812; VI, 331-333, etc. 

'The assembly elected under the new apportionment act of 1746 coo 
tinued in session until Governor Dobbs's arrival in 1754; then an 
election was held in accordance with the law of 1743, although the act 
had been repealed. This assembly of 1754 was not dissolved until 176a 

* A". C. Col. Rcc, V, 879, 881, 889, 900, 903, 905-906, 913-914. 
1 Ibid., 947. 

' Ibid., 889, 913-9U 

• Ibid., 1046. 



The Suffrage in North Carolina. 109 

Before any election law had been passed Governor Dobbs, 
in January, 1760, dissolved the assembly, in order, as he 
said, " to give the Constituents an opportunity of a new 
Election to pass proper Bills before new Cabals or Parties 
are formed to mislead the Assembly and carry Jobs for 
themselves." 1 The result of a dissolution under such cir- 
cumstances might have been foreseen, but the confusion 
could have been lessened, if not altogether avoided, by the 
governor taking a clear and firm position on the subject of 
the suffrage, in accordance with the provision of his instruc- 
tions for the restriction of the suffrage to freeholders. 2 In- 
stead of doing this, his policy was careless and vacillating 
in the extreme. 3 He had, indeed, before this time granted 
charters to most of the counties giving them the privilege 
of sending representatives to the assembly. Only one of 
the charters has been printed in the Records, but in this to 
Orange County, Dobbs took it upon himself to expressly de- 
fine the qualifications of voters and representatives, by limit- 
ing the suffrage to freeholders of one hundred acres or more, 
and the right of being elected to freeholders of two hundred 
acres or over. 4 No evidence has been found to show that 
this high qualification was incorporated into the charters of 
all the counties. 

Instead of adhering to the terms of these charters, what- 
ever they were, Dobbs, in drawing up the writs of election, 
went back to the original charters of the province, which 
placed the elections in the control of the freemen. He di- 
rected that writs should be issued for the free inhabitants of 
the counties to elect their delegates, but through an error 

l N. C. Col. Rec.,Vl, 216. 

2 Ibid., V, iiio-iiii. 

8 It must be remembered that in 1760 Dobbs was about seventy-six 
years of age (N. C. Col. Rec, V, Prefatory Notes, v, and p. 737)- 

*N. C. Col. Rec, V, 767-768, July 19, 1757. A little before this date 
the lower house of assembly had ordered " That no person that is or 
shall be exempt from paying Taxes shall vote for a Representative or 
Representatives in Assembly for any County or Town in this Province" 
(ibid., 855). The subject arose, perhaps, over the poll-tax levy which 
was then under discussion. I do not know whether it was incorporated 
into the act or not. 



no The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

of some clerk the writs came out empowering the inhabitants 
to take part in the elections. 1 In at least one case as Dobbs 
admitted.- and perhaps in others, as the assembly claimed, 3 
writs were even issued for elections by the freeholders in- 
1 of by the inhabitants. Some changes were also made 
in the apportionment of representatives, which the assembly 
later said " is a manifest infringement on the rights of the 
subject, and tenders to endanger the Constitution." 4 

With such confusion in the governor's mind, and such 
looseness in his writs, it was but natural that the elections 
should be irregular and riotous. The journals of the suc- 
ceeding assembly give abundant evidence of this. There 
were contested elections in four counties ; 5 and under the 
governor's writs it was claimed that servants and criminals 
might vote, while the governor himself admitted that sailors 
and non-freeholders had succeeded in electing a set of men 
different from those who would have been chosen by free- 
holder suffrage. 7 The assembly so elected stood for the old 
constitutional rights of the assembly and people. They 
seated a member from the town of Halifax, who had been 
elected without a writ from the governor, on the ground that 
under a clause in the act of 171 5 incorporating the town of 
Bath, any town had the right to send a representative to the 
assembly when it numbered sixty families of inhabitants. 8 
They refused to act until a majority was present, in spite of 
the governor's instructions which had made fifteen members 
a quorum ; 9 and they drew up a protest against the recent 
acts of the governor in elections, in money matters, and in 

1 N. C. Col. Rcc, VI, 303. 

* Ibid. 

" Ibid.; and p. 413. 

* Ibid., 301, 412. 

•Granville, Anson, Bertie, and Perquimans; ibid., 364, 365, 366, 374- 

* Ibid., 303, 413. 
'Ibid., 303. 

' For the action of the assembly, the governor, and the English 
authorities upon this Halifax case, see N. C. Col. Rec, VI, 245, 3^5. 
538-541, 598, 752-3, 983-989, 1006. The question arose again in 1773, 
see ibid., IX, 594-596, 600. 

9 Ibid., VI., 470. 



The Suffrage in North Carolina. in 

relation to fees. 1 To them it seemed " no longer a secret 
that the Governor Intended to modell the Assembly for his 
own particular Purposes," 2 while the governor felt com- 
pelled to ask that his hands be strengthened to oppose " a 
republican spirit of Independency rising in this Colony." 3 

Yet there was common sense enough on both sides to per- 
mit the passage of a general election law. A bill for this 
purpose was introduced into the lower house in November, 
1760, during the second session of the assembly, and in two 
weeks had passed both houses and received the governor's 
approval. 4 The act of December 3, 1760, 5 restored the 
qualifications for assemblymen and voters as they had been 
adopted in 1 743 ; the voter again must be twenty-one years 
of age, six months a resident of the province, and a free- 
holder of fifty acres of land; while the representative must 
be of the same age, be an inhabitant for one year and own 
one hundred acres of land in the county for which he was 
elected. The only important change made by the act was 
the abolition of the ballot-box, and the substitution therefor 
of voting " openly," or viva voce. A fine was to be imposed 
upon sheriffs who refused to take the poll in this manner, 
thus making the new method compulsory. 

The last four years of Dobbs's administration were spent 
in a vain effort to protect the king's prerogative against the 
encroachments of the assembly, in which he gained the ill- 
will of the province and did not win support from home. 6 
His successor, William Tryon, 7 had the far greater diffi- 

% N. C. Col. Rec, VI, 410-415. 

2 Ibid., 415. 

2 Ibid., 279. 

'Ibid., 453, 463, 464, 469, 480, 501, 511. 

6 Davis, Laws (1764), 198-201. 

'The principal subject of dispute was the old one of a quorum, the 
assembly refusing to transact business without a majority, while the 
governor tried to gain recognition for the quorum of fifteen mentioned 
in his instructions (iV. C. Col. Rec, VI, 470, 538-541, 596, 983-989, 1006, 
1024). See ibid., 538, for severe rebuke sent to Dobbs by Board of 
Trade because of " ill timed disputes amongst the different branches 
of the Legislature in North Carolina, upon Questions of meer specu- 
lative Polity, too trivial in almost any times to deserve consideration." 

T Commissioned as lieutenant-governor April 26, 1764 (N. C. Col. 
Rec, VI, 1043). 



jij The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

culty of the Regulator movement to contend with. In the 
meantime although scarcely an election was held that did 
not lead to contested seats in the house, 1 yet a new election 
law i>\ [764 failed in the upper house. 2 In 1768 a move- 
ment was .started for the election of assemblies triennially, 
and in spite of rejections in the upper house, four bills for 
this purpose were introduced and passed in the lower house 
between 1 768 and 1774." The assent of the upper ho 
was gained in 1771 to a supplementary election act, but this 

- so " replete with objections," and " repugnant to the 
British Statutes," 4 that Governor Tryon would not sign 
it ; ■"' and a second attempt in the fall of the same year was 
thwarted in the upper house. 6 The journals, unfortunately, 
are silent upon those features of the acts which led to their 
popularity in the lower house, and which made them repug- 
nant to the council and governor. 

The Regulator movement furnishes few facts bearing 
upon the suffrage, for although the Regulators developed 
some form of representative organization, yet very slight 
reference is made to the election of the representatives. As 
early as 1766 Orange County took steps towards a perma- 
nent representative organization ; 7 and somewhat later an 
agreement is entered into by the Regulators to " choose more 
suitable men than we have heretofore done for Burgesses 
and Vestry men," and to settle differences among them- 
selves by submission to " the Majority of our Body." 8 A 
regular organization of companies, chiefs, and representa- 
tives appears to have been in existence by April 4, 1768, for. 
by an agreement of that date, a Regulators' meeting decided 
to inspect the sheriffs' and vestries' lists of taxables and ac- 

1 See N. C. Col. Rec, VI, 897, 902, 904. 919, 961, 1154b, 1259. 
VII. 350, 35 j. 357. 366, 722-725. 

1 Ibid.. 11 12. 1 122, 1 174, 1 186. 

t Ibid. f VII, 903, 938; IX, 412, 457, 529, 530, 540, 713. 714. 744. 752, 
798-799, 855. 899. 
/.. VIII. 523. 

* Ibid . 426, 428, 459, 479. 

•/Ml, IX. no, 156, 168. 

'Ibid.. VII. 249-21 

•/Ml, 671. 



The Suffrage in North Carolina. .113 

counts of expenditures, and to meet on the first Monday of 
July, October, January, and April. These meetings were to 
continue until the " business be completed to satisfaction at 
the Meeting House near Moses Teague's to which each chief 
is to send one or more representatives from a private meet- 
ing of his own company." * Similar " conventions" were 
held at other times, 2 and one of the principal features in Gov- 
ernor Tryon's proclamation to the Orange County men was 
that they should desist from further meetings " either by 
Verbal agreement or advertisement," and cease using the 
titles of Regulators and Associators. 3 

Apart from these elections among themselves the Regu- 
lators were interested in the Assembly elections, and among 
the various reforms they requested, this was placed first — 
" That at all elections each suffrage be given by Ticket & 
Ballot." 4 They naturally influenced the elections in the 
western counties, 5 and to counteract their influence Tryon 
erected the borough of Hillsborough and gave it the privi- 
lege of sending a representative to the assembly. 6 It was 
the inhabitants of this western county of Orange which in 
1773 gave the following interesting instruction 7 to their 
delegates in assembly : 

"We have chosen you our Representatives at the next General As- 
sembly and when we did so we expected and do still expect that you 
will speak our Sense in every case when we shall expressly declare it, 
or when you can by any other means discover it. In all other cases we 
suppose you left to your own discretion which is ever to be directed 
by the Good of our Country in general and of this County in particular. 
This is our notion of the Duty of Representatives, and the Rights of 
Electors." 

1 N. C. Col Rec, VII, 702-703. 

2 For the Regulators in general, see J. S. Bassett, The Regulators of 
North Carolina, Report of American Historical Association for 1894 
(140-212), 161-170, 172, 183-184. 

*N. C. Col Rec, VII, 731-732, 793- 

"Ibid., VIII, 77. 

6 Ibid., VII, 671, 722-726. 

' Ibid., VII, Prefatory Notes, xxiv ; VIII, 216. 

'Ibid., IX, 699. 

8 



1 14 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

Turning from the county elections and representation, we 
must glance at the elections in the boroughs. In discussing 
the suffrage under the proprietors, a law of 171 5 was men- 
tioned, according to which any town was declared entitled 
to elect a representative to the assembly when its population 
reached sixty families. This was the famous " Bath-town 
Act." which occupies a large place in the colonial corre- 
spondence from 1760. It has also been noted that a subse- 
quent act of 1723 extended the suffrage in towns to the 
tenants of houses of a legal size, who paid taxes or to the 
owners when the houses were untenanted. Under the pro- 
visions of these acts, three towns, Edenton, Bath Town and 
Newbern, sent representatives to the first assembly under 
the royal government. 1 In 1734-35 a new town was erected 
by order of the governor and council, 2 and in 1 739 this town 
of Wilmington was by act of the legislature impowered to 
send a burgess to the assembly, who was to be elected by the 
tenants of houses in the town or by the owners of untenanted 
houses. 3 

Yet a year later, in an act relating to Edenton, and con- 
firming its right to send a representative, the assembly stated 
that no person should be allowed to vote for representative 
unless he was the owner of a saved lot in the town, and had 
held it for six months before the election. 4 

The wholesale disallowance of laws in 1754 and the fol 

l N. C. Col.Rec.,V,%7. 

3 Ibid., IV, 43. 

"Davis, Laws (175O, 99~ioi. The suffrage provision is as follows: 
" Every Tenant of any Brick, Stone or framed habitable House of the 
Length of Twenty Feet, and Sixteen Feet wide, within the Bounds of 
the said Town, who, at the Day of Election, and for Three Months next 
before, inhabited such House, shall be entitled to vote in the Election 
for the Representative of the said Town to be sent to the Generall 
Assembly: And in Case there shall be no Tenant of such House in the 
said Town on the Day of Election, qualified to vote as aforesaid, that 
then and in such Case the Person seized of such House, either in Fee- 
Simple or Fee-Tail, or for Term of Life, shall be entitled to vote for 
the Representative aforesaid." 

* Ibid., 103-108. To save a lot the purchaser must, within two years 
after purchasing, erect " a good substantial, Brick. Stone or framed 



The Suffrage in North Carolina. 115 

lowing years resulted in the repeal of the acts of 1739 and 
1740 respecting Wilmington and Edenton, but they left un- 
touched the more important laws of 171 5 and 1723, which 
granted representation to towns when they obtained a popu- 
lation of sixty families and regulated the elections in such 
towns. Wilmington, Newbern, Edenton, and Brunswick 
later received charters from the governor granting them the 
right to elect a representative, 1 but Bath never took out a 
new charter, as the act establishing it had not been repealed. 
Under the provisions of the Bath-town act of 171 5 other 
towns claimed the right to send a representative when they 
obtained the necessary population; and in 1760 Halifax did 
not even wait for the governor's writ, but elected a burgess, 
who, after investigation of the claims of Halifax by the 
assembly, was admitted to a seat. 2 Dobbs later confirmed 
this right by charter, 3 and six towns thus had the right to 
elect burgesses. Later, three more towns, Campbelton, Hills- 
borough, and Salisbury, received the same right; Tar- 
borough attempted to exercise the privilege, and the Board 
of Trade recommended that Beaufort be given a representa- 
tive. 

In spite of the frequent requests of the governors, the 
Board of Trade appears loath to advise the repeal of the 
Bath- town act of 171 5. In 1762 they merely threaten to so 
advise the king if the assembly persist in the " undutiful & 
unreasonable claims" in cases like that of Halifax. 4 Later 
in 1773, tne y upheld the assembly in refusing a seat to a 
person elected from the lately chartered town of Tar- 
borough, because the town did not possess the number of 
inhabitants required by the act of 1715; 5 and, on the other 

habitable House, not of less Dimensions than Twenty Feet long, Fifteen 
Feet in Wedth, and Eight Feet in Height, between the first Floor and 
the Joists." 
1 N. C. Col. Rec, VI, 228-229, 33i> 333- 

2 Ibid., 245, 365. The Board of Trade resolved that the claim of 
Halifax was " unconstitutional and not warranted by any authority 
whatever" (ibid., 752). 

3 Ibid., 245, 333. 

4 Ibid., VI, 752. 

* Ibid., IX, 348, 746-747, 989. 



1 1 6 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

hand, despite the expressed opinion of Governor Martii 
that the " present Bulk" of the assembly made it embar- 
ing, the lords directed him to grant a charter to Beau- 
fort, which had petitioned for a burgess because its popula- 
tion consisted of over sixty families. 1 The action of the 
.dish authorities appears much more reasonable than that 
of the governors; for the latter, forced by the necessities of 
colonial politics, granted charters to insignificant villages, 2 
while refusing it to larger places. 3 

There appears to have been no general suffrage qualifi- 
cation applicable to all these towns. The laws of 171 5 and 
1723 had given the franchise to householders either by lease 
or by freehold tenure, but this was not uniformly retained. 
It was extended to Brunswick by the general election law of 
1760; 4 and yet a few months later the elections in another 
town, Newbern, were said to be by the freeholders alone, 5 
and in Hillsborough, by the charter of 1770, the same re- 
striction was made. 6 Yet in Campbelton 7 and in Tar- 
borough the electors are merely " the inhabitants." 8 In 
Campbelton especially, certain freeholders charged that their 
charter of 1765 gave "power to all persons whom accident 
or design shall bring within two miles of the Court-house of 
Campbelton, on the day appointed for the Election of a Mem- 
ber to give their suffrages ; altho' their proper place of resi- 
dence be far out of the limits of the said Town, and although 
they have no property in that or any other place to become 

l N. C. Col. Rcc, IX, 636, 640-641, 682. 

1 Both Hillsborough and Tarborough were smaller in size than the 
population fixed by the act of 1715. The first retained while the latter 
lost its representative. 

* Governor Tryon, in 1767, wrote, " The several towns in this province 
are created by act of Assembly but have no right upon their creation 
to send members to the Assembly, nor doth that right by law com- 
mence until there be sixty families residing in the town, at which time 
they may apply [to the governor], and are entitled to a writ for electing 
a representative in the Assembly" (N. C. Col. Rec, VII, 473). 

4 Davis, Laws (1764), 201. 
*N. C. Col. Rec, VI, 672. 

* Ibid., VIII, 216. 
T Ibid., IX, 80. 

* Ibid., 746. Cf. varying suffrage in English boroughs, ante, Ch. I. 



The Suffrage in North Carolina. 117 

the subject of representation." * Thus the elections were 
thrown into " the Hands of transient persons, Boatmen 
Waggoners and other Laborers," and taken " from their 
Employers, who are principally interested in securing or 
improving from their right of Representation, the property 
of the Town." Upon this representation the governor and 
council granted the town a new charter limiting the suffrage 
to freeholders. 2 There was no more uniformity in the elec- 
tion provisions of these charters than there was method in 
erecting the towns or reason for the granting of borough rep- 
resentation. 3 Apparently the ignorance or fancy, or political 
environment of the governors determined the town suffrage. 
The town elections, perhaps on account of the absence of 
uniformity in the suffrage provisions, were more turbulent 
than those in the counties, and the number of contested cases 
is proportionally greater than those arising from county elec- 
tions. 4 

North Carolina had few local officers of an elective nature. 
Mention has already been made of the popular triple nomi- 
nation of candidates for the office of county register, which, 
beginning in 171 5 or before that year, lasted down to the 
Revolution. 5 Another group of elective officials were the 
commissioners of some of the towns. The early laws organ- 
izing towns placed the control of town matters in the hands 
of a board of commissioners, whose numbers were kept up 
either by appointments of the governor 6 or of the neighbor- 
ing county court, 7 or elections by themselves. 8 Many of the 

*N. C. Col. Rec, IX, 79. 

2 Ibid., 79-81, 274. 

* A number of other towns were erected from time to time, but none 
of these ever obtained a population sufficient to give it a representative. 
See Davis, Laws (1751), 62-65, 92-94; (1764), 7, ", 28, 32; (1773), 5°6, 
530, 556. 

4 Out of thirty-six contested election cases noticed in the records 
between the years 1731-1774, fifteen arose in the towns and twenty-one 
in the counties. Throughout the whole period there were three or four 
times as many counties as towns (e.g., 1767, eight towns and twenty- 
nine counties, Col. Rec, VII, 473). 

* See ante, p. 94. 

' E.g., Davis, Laws (1751), 100. 

T E.g., ibid., 62-65, 92-94. 8 E.g., ibid., 210. 



n8 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

later acts erected similar self-perpetuating bodies, 1 but in at 
least two cases provision was made for the election of the 
commissioners by popular vote. The first town to receive 
this privilege, apparently, was Wilmington, where, by an 
act of 1740, the electors qualified to vote for an assembly- 
man were impowered to elect annually five persons from 
whom the governor would choose three to serve as town 
commissioners for the ensuing year. 2 In 1745 all the five 
elected were to serve ; 3 and the same privilege was extended 
to Newbern in 1748, 4 where previously a close corporation 
had existed. These rights were restored by the assembly 
in 1756, after the wholesale repeal of town and county acts 
two years earlier ; 5 but no evidence has been found to show 
that any other towns were granted like privileges. 

The North Carolina vestry from 171 5 to 1741 was a close 
corporation usually appointed in the act erecting the parish, 8 
and subsequently filling vacancies in their own number. But 
in the latter year an act was passed for the election of vestry- 
men every tw r o years by the inhabiting freeholders of every 
parish. 7 This act was later amended to restrict the parish 
suffrage to those qualified to vote for representatives and to 
require the use of the ballot in such elections. 8 The Crown 
disallowed the vestry act in 1754, 9 and thereafter, until 1764 
there was no permanent basis for the parish system. In 
1758 an attempt was made to erect " select" vestries, or close 
corporations, but this was rejected by the lower house. 10 An 
act of 1760 was disallowed by the English government, and 
the church thrown into the greatest confusion. 11 At last a 

1 E.g., Davis, Laws (1773). 470, 506, 530, 556. 

'Davis, Lazvs (1751), 115. 

* Ibid., 204-208. * Ibid., 279. 

1 Davis, Lazes (1764), 93-98, 98-105. Edenton had a close corporation 
of trustees (ibid., 105-111). For later change in Wilmington, see 
Davis, Laws (1773), 507. 

•Davis, Laws (1751), 50, 65, 67. 

I Ibid., 157. 

•In 1751 ; Davis, Laws (175O, 352. 
*N. C. Col. Rcc, V, 116. 
"Ibid.,V, 1063, 1080. 

II See letters of the ministers, ibid., VI, 978, 990, 904, 999. 



The Suffrage in North Carolina. 119 

law was passed in 1764 which appears to have been satisfac- 
tory to the Bishop of London and the British government. 
This act 1 provided for a triennial election of vestrymen by 
those who had within the parish fifty acres of land or a 
town lot saved according to law. Votes were to "be given 
openly," not by ballot, and the suffrage was compulsory : 

" Every Person qualified to vote for Vestrymen in their respective 
Parishes (the People called Quakers excepted) is hereby required to 
attend, and give his Vote at the Election of Vestrymen, in Manner 
herein before directed, unless prevented by some bodily Infirmity or 
legal Disability, under the Penalty of Twenty Shillings, Proclamation 
Money." 2 

A fine was also to be imposed upon dissenters who refused 
to take the oath of vestrymen after they had been elected. 3 

Parish elections in North Carolina differed from those in 
South Carolina in the fact that the first colony required all 
freeholders possessing the requisite fifty acres both to vote 
and to take office if elected, or to pay relatively heavy penal- 
ties for neglect; while her southern neighbor restricted the 
suffrage in such elections to members of the Church of Eng- 
land. They differed from those in Maryland and Virginia 
in that the dissenting class was large in numbers, strong in 
influence, and was aided by a large portion of the community 
who did not care to pay taxes for any church. Under such 
circumstances we need not wonder that great irregularities 
took place at the parish elections. The absence of a vestry 
act for several years made the weak established church still 
weaker, and under the new law of 1764 the conditions be- 
came worse rather than better. On some occasions dissent- 
ers were purposely elected to prevent the organization of a 
vestry and the collection of tithes, 4 and in 1771 an act was 

1 Davis, Laws (1773), 304. 

2 For comment upon this act, see S. B. Weeks, Church and State in 
North Carolina, J. H. U. Studies, XI, 36-38. 

8 It is interesting to notice that the compulsory voting clause was in- 
sisted upon by the lower house after the upper house had voted to 
expunge it (N. C. Col. Rec, VI, 1107-1109). 

4 N. C. Col. Rec, VIII, 180, 202-210, 503. 



120 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

passed which provided for the collection of parish taxes even 
if there was no vestry in the parish. 1 

The suffrage provisions in North Carolina may now be 
summarized. During the first fifty years no definite pro- 
n for the suffrage has been found, and owing to the 
unsettled political conditions the elections must often have 
been farcical if not actually riotous. Formal and regular 
elections may have been held after 171 5, in which year the 
suffrage was granted to all white tax-paying free men 
over twenty-one years of age. This provision was retained 
during the remainder of the proprietary period. The instruc- 
tions to the royal governors conflicted with this wide fran- 
chise, and the governors attempted to make the colonial 
practice square with their orders. Under Burrington the 
contest was closely associated with the effort on the part of 
the governor to erect new precincts; and under Johnston 
the assembly passed a law limiting the suffrage to freehold- 
ers of fifty acres who had resided six months in the province, 
but no longer excluded negroes. With the addition of an 
age requirement of twenty-one years, this qualification re- 
mained unchanged until the Revolution. In the meantime 
a wider suffrage was granted in some towns, where tenants 
of houses could vote. But the whole suffrage and represen- 
tative system was overthrown by the repeal of such acts in 
1754. The right of representation was thereafter restored 
by the charters of the governors, who in some cases also de- 
fined the suffrage qualifications. The act of 1760 restored 
the old qualifications for voters in the counties, but abolished 
the previous ballot voting and substituted the viva voce 
method. In the towns there appear to have been some 
variations in the qualifications for voters, and the borough 
franchise was, without doubt, used by the governors to fur- 
ther their own political plans. Of local elections there were 
those for registers, town commissioners, and vestrymen, 
none of which appears to have varied materially from the 
assembly elections. The most curious feature of the suffrage 
is that compelling qualified freeholders, even dissenters, to 
take part in the parish elections. Another remarkable pro- 
vision is the early exclusion of negroes, and the subsequent 

1 Davis, Laws (1771), 498. 



The Suffrage in North Carolina. 121 

granting of the franchise to them. North Carolina is the 
only colony south of Maryland which did not forbid their 
voting at the time of the Revolution. Throughout the royal 
period the suffrage question is most intimately connected 
with the attempt of the governors to win control of the rep- 
resentative system and direct the legislation of the assembly. 
This connection is seen in 1731 in the contest over the erec- 
tion of new precincts, in 1746 over the subject of the 
quorum, in 1 754-1 756 in the repeal of election acts, in 1760 
in the question of a quorum and the right of town represen- 
tation, and during the later years in the arbitrary erection 
of Hillsborough and Tarborough into towns with right of 
representation. The whole force of the English government 
is usually exerted in favor of the governors in these strug- 
gles. Until the days of the repressive and retaliatory meas- 
ures just preceding the Revolution, no colony felt so heavily 
the hand of British authority, or saw more of its popular 
legislation mutilated by the English veto-power, than did the 
province of North Carolina. 



CHAPTER V. 
The Suffrage in South Carolina. 

The Carolina proprietors under the royal grants of 1663 
and 1665 did not intend keeping their vast domain under one 
government. The struggling Albermarle settlement in the 
North was placed under the tutelage of Governor Berkeley, 
of Virginia, one of the eight proprietors who was empowered 
to appoint one or two governors for Carolina ; x later the un- 
successful Cape Fear settlement was erected into an inde- 
pendent colony ; 2 and the proprietors apparently entertained 
the idea of establishing eight distinct counties, one for each 
proprietor, possessing separate and almost independent gov- 
ernments. 3 This early policy later gave way to an attempt 
to organize a general provincial government under the elab- 
orate provisions of the Fundamental Constitutions; but in 
the same month, July, 1669, that this frame was adopted 
by the proprietors, the same men were affixing their seals to 
documents which would create still another colony within 
their territory, and make a united province almost an im- 
possibility. Thus at first as a result of conscious policy and 
later as the outcome of practical conditions, the Carolina 
lands tended to divide into distinct settlements. Several 
abortive attempts at independent colonies were made, and at 
last only two distinct parts of the province were recognized, 
— the Albermarle settlement, usually spoken of as " Alber- 
marle County ;" and " that parte of the Province of Caro- 
lina that lvctii southward and westward of Cape Feare." 4 

In July, 1669, when instructions were drawn up for the 
governor and council of the proposed colony at Port Royal 
(South Carolina), it was admitted that the number of peo- 

1 N. C. Col. Records, I, 48. 

1 Ibid., 75-92. 

'Ibid., Prefatory Notes, pp. xiv-xv. 

4 This was for many years the only legal name of South Carolina, and 
was continually used in the enacting clauses of the laws; see Statutes 
at Large of South Carolina, II, 13, etc. 



The Suffrage in South Carolina. 123 

pie in Carolina was too small to put in force the " Grand 
Model," 1 and accordingly a modified and temporary form of 
government was ordained by the proprietors. The governor 
and five deputies had been appointed in England, and upon 
arriving in the colony these were to be joined by five more 
elected by the people. 

"As soone as you arrive at Port Royall you are to summon all ye 
freemen that are in ye Collony, and require them to elect five persons, 
who being joyned to ye five deputed by ye respective Propriet rs , are to 
be ye Counsell w th whose advice & consent, or at least sixe of them, 
all being summoned, you are to governe according to the Limitations 
& Instruccons following, observeing what cann at present be putt in 
practice of our fundamentall Constitutions & forme of GovernmV 2 

The ten councillors and the governor were to be assisted in 
the making of laws by deputies also elected by popular 
choice : 

" you are to sumon ye freehoulders of ye Collony & require ym in our 
names to elect twenty persons, wch. together wth or [our] Deputys for 
ye present are to be yr Parliament, by & wth whose consent, or ye 
maior parte of them, you are to make such laws as you shall from time 
to time finde necessary." 3 



The instructions promised one hundred and fifty acres of 
land to every freeman who settled before March 25, 1670, 
and the same amount to the freemen for each male servant 
they brought out to the colony ; one hundred acres for each 
woman-servant or male-servant under sixteen years of age ; 
and promised one hundred acres to every servant upon the 
expiration of his term of service. Smaller amounts were 
to be given to those coming later, but all persons receiving 
land must take an oath of allegiance to the king, and of 
fidelity and submission to the proprietors and to their Fun- 
damental Constitutions. A quit-rent of one penny an acre 

a The suffrage provisions of the royal charters and the fundamental 
constitutions have been discussed under the heading of North Carolina, 
and will be mentioned here only incidentally. 

* Rivers, A Sketch of the History of South Carolina to the Close of 
the Proprietary Government by the Revolution of 1719, Appendix, 347. 

*Ibid., 348. 



124 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

1 upon all lands thus granted, to be paid annu- 
ally after September 29, 1689. 

The party of emigrants left England in August, 1669, 1 
and at the Bermudas a blank commission for governor was 
filled in with the name of William Sayle, and this person 
took charge of the expedition during the days of settlement. 2 
When the colonists arrived at Port Royal, the first election, 
in accordance with the instructions, was held for the selection 
of five councillors. According to the records, the governor 
" Sum'oned all the ffreemen, & there to Elect & choose five 
men to bee of the Councill ;" and after five had been chosen, 
a certain William Owen " alwaies itching to be in Author- 
ity," questioned the legality of the election, but " where- 
vpon the s'd ffreeholdrs or the major p'te of them, mett a 
second tyme, & confirmed their former Election, by sub- 
scribeing of their sev'rall names." 3 

This election, the first held in South Carolina, is of in- 
terest because it was held so early in the history of the 
settlement; indeed, before the ships had reached Charleston 
harbor, and while temporarily lying in Port Royal, the men 
of the fleet were called together. It is to be noted also that 
here, as in the instructions, the words freeman and free- 
holder are used interchangeably. Section 1 of the instruc- 
tions above quoted makes the election of councillors by the 
freemen; while Section 8 names freeholders as electors of 
members of the parliament. So in the account of this first 
election the voters are spoken of as " ffreemen" and as 
" freeholders." There can be no doubt that the electors, 
who did not number many over a score, 4 were simply the 
free men of the expedition, since of freeholders there were as 
yet none, as the place of settlement was not yet reached, and 
no definite assignments of land had been made. The free- 
men under the instructions were potential freeholders, but 

1 McCrady, History of South Carolina under the Proprietary Govern- 
ment, 120 (quoted hereafter as McCrady, I). 

'Ibid., I, 124. 

' The Council writing to the Proprietors, March 21, 1670-71 ; Shaftes- 
bury Papers, Collections of South Carolina Historical Society, V, 291 ; 
Charleston Year-Book, 1883, 371. 

' Collections S. C. Hist. Soc, V, 203, 292. 



The Suffrage in South Carolina. 125 

they were not actual landholders before the land was reached 
or apportioned. 

After reaching Charleston and beginning the settlement, 
the colonists were apparently too much engrossed in their 
own affairs to think of political organization, and it was 
not until three months had passed that the governor and 
council determined to issue certain ordinances restraining 
the profane violation of the Sabbath and " other grand 
abuses." 1 

This determination was reached on July 4, 1670, and on 
that day, or shortly afterwards, the first assembly, although 
an irregular one, was elected. After seriously considering 
the abuses and the manner of redressing them, " and finding 
that the Number of ffreehould rs in the Collony nott neere 
sufficient to Electe a Parliamt; and the s'd late Gov'nor, by & 
wth the advice & consent of vs his Councell, did make such 
orders as wee did think convenient to suppress the same, 
vpon wch the s'd Gov'nor did Sum'ons all the People to 
heare the said Orders, all the s'd flreemen consenting there- 
vnto the s'd Gov'nor & Councell caused the s'd orderes to bee 
published." 2 But this method of promulgating laws was 
opposed by that William Owen who had objected to the elec- 
tion of councillors at Port Royal, and who was " willing to 
doe anything, though ever soe ill in itt selfe, rather then not 
to apeare, to bee a man of ace' on." Owen argued that no 
such orders could be made without the consent of a parlia- 
ment elected according to the instructions. He appears at 
first to have impressed this opinion upon the governor, for 
the latter evidently permitted an election to take place. 3 
Owen directed the election, and wrote with his own hand 
the list of twenty members of parliament, and so controlled 
the choice that it was said he moved " all the rest of the 
fTreemen," " in another spheere then their owne." 4 Owen's 
influence was of short duration; the council prevented the 
governor from recognizing the parliament, and the repre- 
sentatives " without any farthere notice takinge of the s'd 

1 Coll. S. C. Hist. Soc, V, 291. 

2 Ibid., 292. 

3 Ibid., 176-177, 203. 

4 Ibid., 292 ; Charleston Y ear-Book, 1883, 375. 



126 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

will'm Owen, or their Elec'on into dignity (as the s'd Owen 
p'waded them itt would bee) lefte the s'd Owen & his Paper, 

& followed their own Labours, wch indeed neerely concerned 
them & v> tO." ' 

Owen's factious opposition to the ordinances of the gov- 
ernor had a legal basis in the fact that no ordinance power 
delegated to the governor and council by their instruc- 
tions; and consequently the responsibility for the quarrels 
in the colony must be laid not solely at the door of William 
Owen, but also upon the neglect of the proprietors, and their 
anxiety to establish the parliament, council, and other forms 
of the Fundamental Constitutions. 2 The most practical 
method of legislation was that which the governor and coun- 
cil had adopted, — the submission of their ordinances to the 
approval of a general meeting of the freemen. 

Upon the death of Governor Sayle in March, 167 
Joseph West was chosen governor by the council, after 
Sayle had designated him as successor. 3 During the year 
that the colonists had been in the colony their numbers had 
been considerably increased, and newcomers were frequently 
arriving. Accordingly, a few days after the election of ( ! 
ernor West, he called together the " Antient ffreehouldt 
and " the New ffree men," and in a general meeting at the 
storehouse proposed certain ordinances to them. 4 Owen 
again demanded an election of a parliament, although he 
himself admits that there were only between forty and fifty 
freeholders. 3 According to his account, the people unani- 
mously stood by the lords' instructions, that laws " were to 
be framed by 20 persons freehould rs in the nature of a par- 
tem*." But the governor replied that the time was " some 
what unseasonable," and that he intended calling a parlia- 
ment when opportunity served, or the necessity for the mak- 
ing of laws required it. Ten days later, however, in writ- 
ing to the proprietors, the governor and council say then 

1 The Council to the Proprietors, ibid.; also West to Lord Ashley, 
Coll. S. C. Hist. Soc, V, 203. 
1 McCrady, I. 133. 
'Ibid., 1 

4 Coll. S. C. His!. Soc. t V, 293. 
• Ibid., 302. 



The Suffrage in South Carolina. 127 

" noe great necessity att p r sent of a Parliam* our tyme being 
well imployed, if wee cann imploy it well, in Planting & 
other necessary works that lyeth vpon vs." * Sir John Yea- 
mans claimed also that West feared a parliament would 
question too closely his actions or the manner of his elec- 
tion. 2 The desired representative body was not granted, 
and the ordinances of the governor and council were en- 
forced. 

But the proprietors in England were desirous of getting 
a parliament as soon as possible, even while the numbers of 
the colonists were so insignificant. In May, 1671, the pro- 
prietors sent instructions to the " Governor and Council of 
Ashley River" directing them " within thirty days after re- 
ceit hereof to summon ye Freeholders of ye Plantation, & 
require them in our names to elect 20 persons who, togeather 
with our Deputys as our Representatives, for ye present are 
to be your ParliamV 3 The governor was required to call 
a parliament in this manner every two years, and as much 
oftener as the state of affairs in the plantation should re- 
quire. The parliament in each case w T as to choose five of its 
members to act as councillors with the five deputies of the 
proprietors. These mandatory instructions could not have 
reached the colony before July 8, and so we must give Gov- 
ernor West the credit of calling for an election of parlia- 
ment members upon his own volition. In March the gov- 
ernor had said there was no necessity for a parliament, but 
by July " more people being now arrived," he summoned 
"all the ffreemen" and required them to elect twenty per- 
sons to be members of the parliament. The election, com- 
pleted three days later, was not managed altogether peace- 
ably, and Sir John Yeamans, who soon was to become gov- 
ernor himself, advised the voters " in all elections to choose 
such as will stand at the greatest distance from the 
Gou'nor." 4 

The parliament so elected on July 11 was the first legal 
representative body in South Carolina. It proved to be 

1 Coll. S. C. Hist. Soc, V, 295. 

2 Ibid., 349. 

l Ibid., 322; Rivers, Sketch, Appendix, 366. 
4 Ibid., 337-338, 354- 



128 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

greatly in sympathy with Yeamans, and at once began to 
I doubts upon the powers of the council and the legality 
of the governor's election. The details of this contest do 
ni >t concern us here, but it is remarkable that the proprietors 
in England decided upon Yeamans for governor at almost 
the same time that he was strenuously opposing Governor 
West in Charleston. 1 Yeamans's commission and instruc- 
tions did not reach him until the spring of 1672, and only 
on April 19 was he proclaimed governor. 2 On that day, 
" regard being had to the conveniency of the Freemen now 
assembled together in this Towne/' a proclamation was 
issued 4i to dissolve all Parliaments & Parliamentary Con- 
ventions heretofore had or made in this Province" and re- 
quiring " all the freeholders in this Province to come before 
the Grand Councill at Charles Towne" on the following day 
to elect a parliament. Accordingly, on April 20, " came the 
Freemen &c at Charles Towne, and having then made their 
election," they presented the names of the twenty members 
of the parliament to the governor and the proprietary depu- 
ties. Immediately " the said Parliament &c then and there 
out of themselves did elect five persons" to be joined with 
the proprietors' deputies as a " Grand Councill." 3 

Thus did the proprietors, " fond of their new form of 
government," 4 lay the foundations for republican govern- 
ment, while they had in mind only the final establishment of 
their aristocratic constitutions. All of these provisions for 
government were accounted temporary, and they should 
soon give place to the elaborate requirements of the " Grand 
Model." As early as June 21, 1672, steps were taken for 
the incorporation of the " nobillity" into the legislature, and 
the temporary laws of that date provided that " the Parlia- 
ment shall consist of ye Governor, ye Deputys of the Lords 
Proprietors, the Nobillity and twenty chosen by the Free- 
houlders." 5 In spite of the efforts of the proprietors, their 

1 McCrady, I, 158. 

■ Coll. S. C. Hist. Soc, V, 390. 

* Ibid., 390; Rivers, Sketch, Appendix, 378. 

* An Historical Account of the Rise and Progress of the Colons 
South Carolina and Georgia (Alexander Hewatt), London, 1729, I, 60. 

8 Coll. S. C. Hist. Soc, V, 405 ; Rivers, Sketch, Appendix, 355- 



The Suffrage in South Carolina. 129 

aristocracy of landgraves and caciques never occupied any- 
place in the government, although the form was kept up of 
making the governor a landgrave before his appointment. 1 

One more of the early elections that may be mentioned is 
that which took place upon the death of Governor Yeamans 
and the succession of West to the vacant position. On 
August 16, 1674, the council " Resolved that the ffreehold- 
ers of this Settlem* be sumoned to appear at Charles-towne 
upon Thursday next in the morning then and there to elect 
a ParliamV After the election of the parliament members, 
the latter proceeded to elect six from themselves to sit with 
the deputies as a council. 2 

In looking back now over the elections of these first four 
years of South Carolina's history, we are met with the fact 
that popular elections and a representative system are es- 
tablished from the first days of the settlement. Had there 
been no desire on the part of the proprietors to set their 
" Model" in motion, it is quite likely that occasional meet- 
ings of all the inhabitants would have served the political 
needs of the colony. In Maryland the pure democracy was 
retained for about twenty years, and in the New England 
colonies it was the usual type of early colonial organization. 
Its evident efficiency is seen in the way in which the two 
popular gatherings in South Carolina, of July, 1670, and 
March, 1671, accepted the ordinances of the governor and 
council. The demagogue William Owen would have had 
no power had he not based his arguments upon the proprie- 
tary instructions for a parliament. But the lords proprie- 
tors must needs approach as near as possible to their im- 
practicable form of government; and thus in 1671, when 
the population did not greatly exceed 200, and there may 
have been somewhat over fifty freeholders, 3 — these free- 
holders were required to select twenty for a parliament in 
addition to the five deputies of the proprietors ; thus making 

1 McCrady, I, 157, 218, 232, 266, etc. 

2 Coll. S. C. Hist. Soc, V, 452; Hewatt, I, 74- 

3 In March, 1670-71, Owen said there were two hundred and odd in- 
habitants, of whom between forty and fifty were freeholders. By July 
" more people" arrived, but how many is not stated. Coll. S. C. Hist. 
Soc, V, 302, 337. 

9 






130 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

nearly one-half of the freemen members of the parliament. 
If all those so elected actually attended the parliament meet- 
ings, it is probable that this assembly contained a larger pro- 
portion of the voters than the democratic meetings of Mary- 
land or Massachusetts, in which the proxy system and the 
reluctance of freemen to travel kept the real attendance far 
w the number of those actually empowered to partici- 
pate. 

Another fact of significance in these early elections is to 
be found in the synonymous character of the words free- 
man and freeholder. The first term has here little semblance 
of the New England meaning, but if ever used apart from 
the freeholder sense, it meant free man. There is, however, 
no distinction in the current records between the two words. 
The same election, as an inspection of the preceding excerpts 
will show, is frequently said to have been performed by the 
freemen and by the freeholders ; and from the point of view 
of the suffrage the two may be taken as absolutely synony- 
mous. The very nature of the land grants, giving 150 acres 
or some smaller amount later to every free man, would 
necessarily make the terms equivalent in fact, as they are in 
the grammatical usage of the time. The Fundamental Con- 
stitutions had provided that electors should possess at least 
fifty acres of land, 1 and although the constitutions did not 
become effective, yet the smallest amount of land promised 
to freemen was seventy acres ; 2 thus ensuring to any free 
man who could reach the colony, and to every servant after 
his time expired, an amount of land more than sufficient to 
qualify him as an elector. The ease with which land was 
acquired must be borne continually in mind when we con- 
sider the colonial real estate qualifications for the suffrage. 

After 1674 the suffrage question does not become promi- 
nent until the French Huguenots had come into the colony 
in large numbers. A system of proxy voting, so natural in 
its development in all the colonies owing to the difficulties of 
transportation and the impelling necessity of the struggle 
for existence, arose in South Carolina. The proprietors in 

1 Section 66 of " First Set," Coll. S. C. Hist. Soc, V, no. 
1 Rivers, Sketch, Appendix, 348. 



The Suffrage in South Carolina. 131 

September, 1683, wrote to the governor that they were in- 
formed 

" that men are admitted to bring papers for others, and to put in their 
votes for them which is utterly illegal and contrary to the custom of 
parliament, and will in time, if suffered, be very mischievous. You are 
therefore to take care that such practices be not suffered for the future ; 
but every man must deliver his own vote and no man be suffered to 
bring the vote of another." * 

No further facts concerning this early proxy method have 
been found, but it illustrates again the reluctance of the early 
settlers to forsake their plantation work and take part in 
elections. In the intervening years there was dissatisfaction 
with the apportionment of representatives, as when in 1683 
the governor was directed to have ten representatives for each 
of the counties of Berkeley and Colleton elected, in spite of 
the fact that the former was far more populous than the lat- 
ter. 2 During this period the assembly refused to take the 
oath to the new Fundamental Constitutions of 1682; 3 and 
later, in the quarrel which arose inevitably over the payment 
of quit-rents, the people became turbulent, the assembly 
would not recognize Governor Colleton, and the province 
was in a condition of anarchy. 4 

Upon the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 tne 
proprietors of Carolina encouraged the settlement of the Hu- 
guenot exiles in the province, and within two years 50,000 
acres of land were granted to Frenchmen. 5 In all about 
400 of these persons settled in Carolina at this time. 6 They, 
of course, continued to use their own language, and while 
some used a French translation of the English Prayer-Book, 
others maintained a non-conformist service. The French- 
men were not at once admitted to the rights of citizens. 
Governor Southwell, who had practically gained his office 
by popular choice, caused an act to be passed in May, 1691, 

1 Rivers, Sketch, Appendix, 407. 
' Ibid., 406-7. 

* McCrady, I, 210. 

* Hewatt, I, 100-101 ; McCrady, I, 224-231. 
•Rivers, Sketch, 174. 

9 Ibid., 447 ; McCrady, I, 324. 



13a The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

for the naturalization of all French and Swiss Protestants; ■ 
hut this act, with all the other laws of this parliament, was 
disallowed by the proprietors. Had the act been ratified, it 
might have prevented subsequent trouble, for in 1691 Gov- 
ernor Ludwell was instructed to grant five or six representa- 
tives to Craven County, which was populated almost ex- 
clusively by the French. 2 To refuse naturalization to the 
French, and then to give these aliens the right to elect almost 
one-third of the assembly, was more than the English in- 
habitants of Berkeley County could stand. This county, 
having a majority of the population, was given only one- 
third of the representation. It was but natural that the 
English should ask " Shall the Frenchmen, who cannot 
speak our language, make our laws?" 3 

At an assembly election in 1692, according to Ludwell's 
instructions, six Frenchmen represented Craven County. 4 
This assembly passed the first South Carolina act " to Regu- 
late the Elections of Members of Assembly." The act is 
not given in either Trott's Laws or the Statutes at Large, 
but an idea of its contents can be gained from a letter of the 
proprietors to Governor Ludwell. 5 From this it appears that 
the law permitted any person to vote for representatives who 
was willing to take oath that he was worth ten pounds, but 
it did not specify any term of residence for an elector. The 
act was in contravention to the provision of the constitutions 
of 1669 and 1682, which required a voter to possess a free- 
hold of fifty acres, and yet the ten pounds qualification ap- 
pears again in an accepted law of 1704. 6 The same assem- 
bly, in drawing up a list of grievances against Governor 
Southwell, protested that the number of representatives of 
the people was too small, and that the people did not, as the 
King's charter directed, fix the number of their delegates. 7 

Only three weeks after the assembly had passed its elec- 

1 Rivers. Sketch, 175. 

"AT. C. Col. Rcc, I, 373; Rivers, Sketch, 176. 

• Rivers, Sketch, 176. 

* McCrady, I. 239. 

* Rivers, Sketch, Appendix, 437. 

• Statutes at Large of S. C, II, 249. 
7 Rivers, Sketch. Appendix, 434. 



The Suffrage in South Carolina. 133 

tion law, and of course without knowledge of it, the pro- 
prietors ordered, in November, 1692, that certain laws, 
among which were any relating to the election of representa- 
tives to the assembly, should not go into force until the pro- 
prietary confirmation had been given. 1 When the election 
act reached England, the proprietors hastened to disallow it. 
Since all the representatives were for the present elected in 
counties, the proprietors were of opinion that they should be 
chosen only by freeholders, thus by inference conforming to 
the English distinction between the borough and the county 
suffrage. And this act 

"not mentioning how long any person worth tenn pounds must have 
been an Inhabitant of the County before he be admitted to vote for 
members of the Assembly, it is so loose that by this Act all the Pyrates 
that were in the Shipp that had been plundering in the Red Sea had 
been qualified to vote for Representatives in Carolina, which being 
of dangerous consequence to the Inhabitants, we have thought fitt to 
dissent to that act alsoe." 2 

Whether the personal property qualification of this law 
was a means to open the suffrage to non-freeholding citizens 
of Berkeley County — where Charleston was situated — in or- 
der to counterbalance the power of the French is not clear ; 
but there can be no doubt that the opposition to the Hugue- 
nots was rapidly growing stronger. Their land titles were 
now questioned, their marriages were popularly held to be 
void, and interference was made with their religious ser- 
vices. 3 The English colonists attempted, moreover, to ex- 
clude them altogether from political privileges. They pre- 
pared an address to Joseph Blake, whom the council had 
chosen governor in 1694, " praying that the refugees might 
not only be denied the privilege of sitting as members of the 
legislative body, but also of a vote at their election, and that 
the assembly might be composed, only of English members, 

divers, Sketch, Appendix, 435. 

8 Ibid., 437. The " Red Sea Pyrates" is a reference to a vessel manned 
by seventy pirates, who ran away from Jamaica to Charles Towne, 
bringing with them a "vast" quantity of gold from the Red Sea (Colh 
S. C. Hist. Soc, I, 205). 

l Ibid. 



134 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

chosen by Englishmen." * Blake did not grant the request, 
and this petition appears to have been the last serious opposi- 
tion to the French. Under Governor Archdale's adminis- 
tration, the attitude of the English towards the refugees 
changed rapidly within the next two years, — a change which 
the records do not adequately explain. 2 As early as Sep- 
tember, 1696, the proprietors had received word from the 
colony that the assembly was inclined to grant naturaliza- 
tion to the French, and they express their satisfaction at the 
news. 8 The change in sentiment must have been noticed in 
the preceding spring, and this was not more than a year and 
a half after the petition praying for the total exclusion of 
the French from political rights had been presented. 

But the naturalization act did not pass during Archdale's 
administration. It was Joseph Blake, again acting as gov- 
ernor, who advised the French to take advantage of the 
change in popular sentiment and petition the assembly for 
admission to the rights of English citizenship. 4 The assem- 
bly could now say, in the preamble to the act of March 10, 
1696-97, in strong contrast to the feeling two years earlier, 

" Prosecution for Religion hath forced some Aliens and Trade and 
the Fertility of this colony has encouraged others to resort to this 
Colony, all which have given Testimony of their humble Duty and Loy- 
alty to his Majesty and the Crown of England, and of their Fidelity to 
the true and absolute Lords and proprietors of this Province, and of 
their Obedience to their Laws, and their good Affections to the In- 
habitants thereof, and by their Industry, Diligence and Trade have 
very much enriched and advanced this Colony and Settlement then 

The act then provided " that all Aliens, Male and Female, 
of what Nation soever, whjch now are Inhabitants of South- 

1 Hewatt, I, 128-9. 

'Ibid., 139-140, simply transcribes the preamble of the naturaliza- 
tion act of 1696-7 in assigning causes for the change in feeling; and 
McCrady, I, 289, does not throw much light on the reasons for the 
more kindly spirit of the English colonists. 

1 Coll. S. C. Hist. Soc, I, 141 ; Proprietors to Archdale, September 10, 
1696. 

* Hewatt, I, 140: McCrady, I, 289. 

'"Statutes at Large of S. C, II, 131 ; Trott's Laws, I, 61. 



The Suffrage in South Carolina. 135 

Carolina, their Wives and Children," might be admitted to 
all the rights and privileges of English subjects, and be ad- 
judged as free as if they were born of English parents within 
the province. The petitioners were at once admitted to citi- 
zenship, and any others might be given the same privileges 
by petitioning the governor within the next three months. 
In all cases the petitioner must take an oath of allegiance to 
King William. " Full, free and undisturbed Liberty of 
their Consciences" was granted to all Christians, " Papists 
only excepted." 

Although no provision was made for future alien settlers, 
and only three months were granted to the French to hand 
in their petitions and take the oaths, 1 yet the act was tem- 
porarily successful, 2 and the political position of aliens does 
not again appear upon the records for almost five years. A 
permanent naturalization act was not passed until 1704. 3 
The political contest here between native-born English and 
aliens is almost unique in colonial history. It was brought 
on first by the absence of any general naturalization law; 
and, secondly, by the aim of the proprietors to admit the 
aliens to the suffrage, and grant the county inhabited by 
them a representation almost equal to the populous Berkeley 
County, in spite of the fact that the French were still aliens 
and could legally exercise no English political rights. We 
find popular opposition to alien voters again in the election 
troubles of the years 1 701-1706, but little antagonism to the 
French as such. The earlier jealousy of the French settlers 
apparently arose from the unwise attempt of the proprietors 
to give such great political influence to unnaturalized for- 
eigners. 

The assembly which naturalized the French also passed 
an act for the regulating of elections of members of the 
assembly; but, unfortunately, the act is not given in the 
printed collections of laws. 4 From a private letter of 1703, 
it appears that this act contained the ten pounds qualifica- 

1 McCrady, I, 323, says 154 aliens in all sought naturalization under 
the act. 
J Hewatt, I, 140. 

1 Statutes at Large of S. C, II, 251 ; Trott's Laws, I, 107. 
4 Ibid., 130; Ibid., 60. 



136 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies, 

tion for voters to which the proprietors had objected in 1693, 
and which was now joined to a three-months' residence in 
the colony. The assembly in 1703, by a "noble vote," de- 
clared foreigners who possessed these qualifications entitled 
to vote; which caused Landgrave Smith in disgust to re- 
mark that he could not see how they could be happy in the 
colony unless election laws and some others were to be 
passed in England. 1 The terms of the act of 1696-97 were 
not strong enough, however, to prevent great abuses at elec- 
tions within a few years. 2 

The years 1 700-1 706 comprised a period of contest for 
power between the dissenters and the Church party, in which 
the French took the side of the proprietors and Anglicans. 
During this time, as previously, all elections were held in 
Charleston, and election quarrels and frauds were frequent. 
The relative merits of the two parties are difficult to de- 
termine at the present time. Oldmixon and the earlier his- 
torians generally accepted the story of the dissenters, while 
Mr. Edward McCrady, in his scholarly work on South Caro- 
lina under the proprietors, partly exonorates the Churchmen 
from the criticism formerly heaped upon them. Our interest 
lies mainly with the influence of these quarrels upon the suf- 
frage; but for the whole period the reader may be referred 
to McCrady, Carroll, Hewatt, Rivers, and the documents 
in the appendix to Rivers. 

After Governor Blake's death in 1700, the council, in 
some confusion, elected James Moore as governor. 3 Moore 

1 McCrady, I, 413, quoting Dalcho, Church History, 56. 
1 An interesting election writ — the only one noticed in South Carolina 
— belongs to about this time. (Rivers, Sketch, Appendix, 439.) It is 
directed to the high sheriff of Berkeley County, and says: 

" We . . . Command you to Summon all the King's Leidge 
subjects, the freemen Inhabitants of Berkly County to be and 
appear together with all the rest of the freemen as aforesaid of 
this part of our Province, at Charlestowne, on the 19th day of 
December next, then and there by a majority of their voices to 
agree to and ascertaine the number of their Representatives for 
this part of the Province, to consult and advise with us about 
making such laws as shall be necessary for the safety and de- 
fence of this Province." 
"Hewatt. I, 145. 



/ 

The Suffrage in South Carolina. 137 

was a churchman whose not over-sensitive conscience was 
rendered more flexible by the financial difficulties in which 
he had become involved. 1 In the election of 1701 he de- 
termined to have an assembly of his " own complexion" 
elected, and in this he was greatly aided by the custom of 
electing members for all counties in the city of Charleston. 
The election was a " scene of riot, intemperance, and con- 
fusion," 2 according to one writer. A later protest by the 
members from Colleton County premising how elections 
should be free and indifferent, and how no alien not specially 
qualified may elect or be elected to serve in the assembly, 
proceeds to describe how the rights of Englishmen had been 
violated, the ancient usages and customs of the province 
broken, and the act for regulating elections ignored. 

" For so it was, may it please your Lordships, that at the said Elec- 
tion, much threat'nings, many intreaties & other unjustifiable actions 
were made use of, & illegal and unqualify'd votes given in to the Sheriff, 
& by him receiv'd & returned ; particularly the votes of very many un- 
qualify'd Aliens were taken & enter'd, the votes of several Members of 
the Council were fil'd & receiv'd, a great number of Servants & poor & 
indigent persons voted promiscuously with their Masters & Creditors, 
as also several free Negroes were receiv'd, & taken for as good Electors 
as the best Freeholders in the Province. So that we leave it with 
Your Lordships to judge whether admitting Aliens, Strangers, Ser- 
vants, Negroes, &c, as good and qualified Voters, can be thought any 
ways agreeable to King Charles' Patent to Your Lordships, or the Eng- 
lish Constitution of Government." 3 



The assembly which met after these election frauds was 
naturally not a peaceable one. The governor, by proroga- 
tions, prevented an investigation of the last election, and 
then turned popular attention to an expedition to attack the 
Spaniards at St. Augustine. 4 At the next meeting of the 
assembly, the lower house took steps to prevent trouble at 
the next election. Accordingly, a bill was twice passed in 
:he lower house " for the settling of Elections for the future, 

1 McCrady, I, 374. 

'Hewatt, I, 150. 

8 Rivers, Sketch, Appendix, 455. 

4 Ibid., 455-456. 



13& The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

and for granting as much freedom to the French and other 
Aliens as could be granted by the Assembly, or the French 
reasonably expect." 1 These bills, the contents of which are 
not known, were rejected by the governor and council with- 
out granting a conference. Perhaps it was with design that 
a more stringent election law was not passed, and aliens and 
unpropertied persons excluded from the suffrage. The dis- 
senters claimed that the election of 1703 was accompanied 
with greater irregularities than occurred at the former one. 
Now, it was said " Jews, Strangers, Sailors, Servants, 
groes and almost every French Man in Craven & Berkly 
County came down to elect, & their Votes were taken, & 
the Persons by them voted for were returned by the Sheriff, 
to the manifest wrong & prejudice of other Candidates 

The assembly so elected is one of the memorable legis- 
latures of South Carolina. Whether truly representative of 
the population or not, — and the historians differ as to the 
proportions of churchmen and dissenters at this time, — it 
was strongly in favor of the English church, and in sym- 
pathy with the plans of the proprietors and the governor for 
a church establishment. 3 The coalition of High Church- 
men and French Huguenots had given the former control of 
the assembly, and they now proceeded to turn the tables upon 
the dissenters who had attempted to cut out the French 
from political privileges, by presently passing an act which 
would exclude the dissenters themselves from the assembly. 
The act of May 6, 1704, in a lengthy title and preamble, 
stated its purpose to be the " more effectual preservation of 
the government," by requiring the members of the commons 
house of assembly to take certain oaths, conform to the 

1 Rivers, Sketch, Appendix, 457 ; Oldmixon, in Carroll, Collections, 
II, 425. 

2 Ibid., 459. The authors of the Colleton County Representation 
that the French, owing to their ignorance of the English language, * 
often made tools of and imposed upon. They advised legislation by an 
English assembly, for, they say, " we can't imagine that we do them 
hurt, by making good and wholesome Laws for us & them, since we 
oblige them by no Laws whatsoever, or upon any account, then what we 
ourselves are obliged by, & live under." 

* Hewatt, I. 140-153. 163-170 : Oldmixon. in Carroll, Collections, II. 
418. 436 



The Suffrage in South Carolina. 139 

Church of England, and take the Lord's Supper according 
to the service of that church. 1 Disavowing a desire to perse- 
cute for the sake of religion, the act stated that many con- 
tentions and animosities had been created by admitting per- 
sons of differing religious sentiments into the assembly, and 
that a policy of restricting membership to Churchmen had 
been adopted by the English House of Commons. 2 The act 
required all persons elected to the assembly to present evi- 
dence that they had partaken of the Lord's Supper accord- 
ing to the rites of the Church of England ; or that, feeling 
themselves unworthy to partake, they regularly attended 
divine services according to the English form. 3 

Under the new act even a Churchman might be incon- 
venienced, for there were only two Anglican churches in the 
colony, 4 and to either of these the member must journey and 
receive the sacrament ; and, indeed, it was claimed that most 
of the members who voted for the measure had been con- 
stant abstainers from the sacrament. 5 A most unjust clause 
provided for the seating of the candidate having the next 
highest number of votes, when a dissenter refused to qualify 
according to the act. Thus were the dissenters to taste the 
pains of political disqualification which they had recently 
been anxious to impose upon the Huguenots. In Colleton 
County, out of 200 electors, only fourteen were qualified to 
serve in the assembly; and at the election of 1705 only ten 
voters from this county came to the election in Charleston, 
where they voted for fourteen candidates and the sheriff 
returned the ten having the highest number of votes. 6 
" Craven and Berkley Counties were so streightned by 
the qualifying act, that they had not 20 men to represent 

1 Statutes at Large, II, 232 ; Trott's Laws, I, 105. 

2 This was not true. 

3 The proprietors ratified this act, sometimes called the " Occasiona 1 
Act," and the church act passed at the same time. The English House 
of Lords petitioned the Queen against the acts, but nothing came of 
this opposition. For full account of these events, see McCrady, I, 
406-445. 

4 McCrady, I, 408. 

8 Oldmixon, in Carroll, Collections, II, 434. 
"Carroll, Collections, II, 41. 



140 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

them, unless they would choose a dissenter, or a man not fit 
to sit in the assembly." 1 

In 1704, while the Church party was in power, they passed 
two other important acts in addition to the church acts ; one 
for the regulation of elections, and the other for the natu- 
ralization of aliens. The reason for passing the election act 
was said to be the many and troublesome complaints which 
lately had been presented to the assembly, and their con- 
sideration which consumed too much time, and interfere 1 
with " more necessary and publick business." 2 The voters' 
qualifications were apparently not changed from those re- 
quired by the act of 1696-97, but we have the full text of 
the law for the first time. It is provided 

" That no person whatsoever, under the age of one and twenty years, 
shall have right to vote for any member of Assembly in any county or 
precinct whatsoever, and that no person whatsoever, which hath less 
than fifty acres of land in possession, or value of ten pounds, in money, 
goods, chattels or rents, and which doth not personally reside and 
dwell in the county or precinct for which he doth vote for, or pretend 
to choose members of Assembly, by the space of three months before 
the dates of the writts for election shall have right to vote for members 
as aforesaid." 

The fifty acres and the ten pounds provision had probably 
been a part of the disallowed act of 1692, and of that of 
1696-97; while the three months' residence had aire 
been adopted in the latter act. 3 

Persons not residing in any county were to be permitted 
to vote with the next adjoining county or precinct; sheriffs 
were authorized to administer an oath to persons whose 
qualification was in doubt; and all county or precinct 
officers were forbidden to serve in the assembly. A posi- 
tive prohibition of proxy voting, similar to such provisions 
in other colonies, was a part of this measure : 

" That every election for members of Assembly shall be in some open 
and publick place, and that no person whatsoever, here qualified to vote, 

1 Carroll, Collections, II, 441. 
'Statutes at Large, II, 249-251. <- 
• See p. 135. 



The Suffrage in South Carolina. 141 

shall, being absent from the place of election, give his voice or vote by- 
proxy, letter, or any other way whatsoever, but shall be present in 
person or his voice to be taken for none." 1 

The polls were to be open from 8 to 12 in the forenoon and 
from 2 to 6 in the afternoon on not more than two days. 
After the adjournment on the first day, the sheriff was di- 
rected to " seal up in a paper bag or box all the votes given 
in that day in the presence of and with the seals of two or 
more of each contending party;" which is presumptive evi- 
dence that voting was performed by ballot. It is remark- 
able, indeed, that throughout the history of South Carolina, 
voting was uniformly by ballot ; we have seen a subscribing 
of hands in the first election of councillors at Port Royal in 
1670; some form of subscription or ballot was also probably 
used in the other early elections; and from 1683 onward 
to 1904 the ballot has been invariably used. 2 

Aliens were not formally excluded from the suffrage by 
this act, and only a year earlier the assembly by vote had held 
that aliens, if otherwise properly qualified, could vote under 
the law of 1696-97. But now, either to reward their late 
friends, or to place their right to vote beyond question, an 
act for the naturalization of foreigners was passed. 3 This 
law permitted aliens to be naturalized and admitted to all 
the rights of English citizens upon taking the oath of alle- 
giance to the Queen, and the oath of abhorrency against the 
Pope's pretended power of deposition. But no alien could 
sit in the assembly; and none could vote for assembly 
members unless he was qualified according to the terms of 
the act of 1704. This was the first general naturalization 

1 Proxy voting had already been forbidden by the proprietors as early 
as 1683. In Barbadoes, by acts of 1709 and 1713, sheriffs, election 
officers, and candidates, not being able to visit several polling places 
when properly qualified in each, were permitted to send " Letters" to 
the election officers of other parishes, giving their votes therein. Acts 
of Assembly Passed in the Island of Barbadoes, From 1648 to 1718 
(London, 1721), pp. 271, 280. 

a McCrady, I, 199, note, says, "There never has been an election in 
South Carolina except by ballot, as far as is known." 

'Act of November 4, 1704, Statutes at Large, II, 251; Trott's Laws, 
I, 107. 



142 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

act which was enacted, since that of 1696-97 applied only 
to aliens then resident in the province, and gave them only 
three months to accept its terms. The act, although perhaps 
a party measure dictated by party policy, served, neverthe- 
less, as nothing else could do, to incorporate the foreigners 
into the life of the community. An occasional reference is 
made to Frenchmen in the accounts of the succeeding elec- 
tion, but from that time they disappear as a distinct party 
from the colonial political life, and the alien question, which 
had troubled the country for twenty years, was now set at 
rest. 

Even after the act regulating elections had been passed in 
1704, we still hear of election evils. " Masters of ships" 
were sought after as voters; and "violence" still accom- 
panied the elections. 1 In order to protect their work, the 
assembly w r ent so far as to extend their own terms of office ; 2 
but the governor failed to respect this act and dissolved the 
legislature shortly afterwards. The objectionable religious 
acts of 1704 were repealed in November, 1706, and there- 
after the factional animosities and election contests grew 
less virulent. A great excitement w r as, indeed, aroused at 
the time of the election of Robert Gibbes as governor upon 
the death of Governor Tynte in 1710; 3 but Gibbes was 
shortly after superseded by Charles Craven, who assumed 
control in 1712. 4 Under Governor Craven the popular ex- 
citement ceased, and we are told that " The assembly in his 
time was not elected, as formerly, in a riotous and tumultarv 
manner, but with the utmost harmony and regularity, and 
proceeded to their deliberations with great temper and mu- 
tual friendship." 5 

The following four years, apparently so peaceful for the 
colony, were in reality storing up wrath against the pro- 
prietors. A number of things combined about 171 7 to make 
the proprietary government peculiarly obnoxious to the col- 
onists, and led to the demand for the assumption of political 

1 Oldmixon, in Carroll, Collections, II, 441-443. 

* Statutes at Large, II, 266. 
"McCrady, I, 489-491. 

4 Ibid. , 505. 

• Hewatt, I, 200. 



The Suffrage in South Carolina. 143 

control by the Crown. One of the first of these facts was 
the Yamassee Indian war which broke out early in 171 5; 
and, after the perpetration of horrible atrocities by the In- 
dians, was suppressed only by supreme exertions and great 
expense on the part of the colonists. 1 The weakness of the 
proprietary government was clearly shown in the course of 
this war, while its narrow policy was evidenced at the close 
of the war, when it forbade the provincial authorities to 
protect their frontier by colonizing five hundred Irish upon 
the deserted Indian lands. 2 Most unwisely, too, the pro- 
prietors had placed a number of the colonial offices in the 
hands of two unpopular men, 3 Nicholas Trott and his 
brother-in-law, William Rhett ; who thus were enabled to ex- 
ercise wide political power, and interfere with elections of 
members of assembly at the general elections in Charleston. 4 
The proprietors gave Trott a practical veto upon all the busi- 
ness of the council and upon legislation by forbidding the 
transaction of any business unless he was present at the 
council meeting. 5 Quarrels also arose inevitably over the 
quit-rents due to the proprietors, and concerning the dis- 
position of the profits of the Indian trade. To these causes 
for dissatisfaction, the proprietors added another, which at 
length drove the people of their province into open insur- 
rection. 

In 1 716, after Governor Craven had left the colony, the 
assembly passed a number of important and popular meas- 
ures, among which was one for the appointment of a public 
receiver, another for the laying of duties upon slaves and 
goods imported into the colony, and another for regulating 
elections. The last of these is the one which has most value 
for our purposes. 

It has been noted that the assembly elections were all held 
in Charleston; and although members were said to be 
elected for one or another of the counties, yet the voters of 

1 For account of this war, see McCrady, I, 530-556 ; Hewatt, I, 212- 
230. 
1 Hewatt, I, 229-230. 
•McCrady, I, 528-529; Hewatt, I, 231. 
4 Hewatt, I, 232. 
'McCrady, I, 529. 






144 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

all counties must assemble in Charleston on the two days of 
election, and there decide upon their county representatives. 
The burden and inconvenience of such a plan must have been 
felt at an early day, and for a time the proprietors favored 
the holding of elections in the localities. In 1683 they di- 
rected that ten assemblymen should be chosen at Charleston 
and ten at London in Colleton County, 1 but this method ap- 
parently did not become the custom, 2 and the proprietors 
" issued their commands in vain." In 1690 the proprietors 
write that they have received information that it is found 
troublesome and expensive for the inhabitants to come to 
Charleston, and they therefore advise that the county of 
Berkeley should be divided into four election precincts. 3 In 
1697 the proprietors again revert to the subject, proposing 
the formation of districts; and adding that if the inhabit- 
ants of Charleston object, the governor may propose to erect 
them into a corporation with the usual privileges. 4 The last 
clause may give us the reason why the change was not 
earlier accomplished; the Charleston inhabitants would be 
benefited in many ways, and would gain considerably 
greater influence in the elections if they were held in the 
city, and their representatives in the assembly would doubt- 
less oppose any district system. 

But the proprietors themselves later favored these elec- 
tions in Charleston, perhaps because they could be more 
easily influenced than a number of separate elections in dis- 
tant country towns. Trott and Rhett, the proprietary work- 
ers, gained a " great Sway in the Elections," 5 which were 
often conducted for their purposes in a tumultuous fashion. 
Several grand juries had presented these Charleston elec- 
tions as a public evil, 6 and at last in 1716 the assembly took 

1 Rivers, Sketch, Appendix, 406-7. 

■ Collections S. C. Hist. Soc, I, 124. 

•Elections in Charleston are referred to in Hewatt, I, 232, 255; Car- 
roll, Collections, II, 148, 159, 162, 318, 441 ; McCrady, I, 198-200, 282, 
etc. 

* Collections S. C. Hist. Soc, I, 142. 

'Proceedings of the People of South Carolina, Carroll, Collections, 
II, 149. 

'Statutes at Large, II, 683. 



The Suffrage in South Carolina. 145 

steps to district the colony and hold the elections in the 
parish churches. Trott and Rhett, believing their influence 
would be lessened " by this new Method, " endeavored in 
vain to prevent the passage of the bill ; the assembly passed 
the act and sent it to England for ratification. 1 It was said 
that of this act, " the People were very fond ; finding it gave 
them a greater freedom of Election, and was more to them 
than going out of their respective Counties to Charles 
Towne." 2 

The act of December 15, 1716, 3 is entitled "An Act to 
keep inviolate and preserve the freedom of Elections, and 
appoint who shall be deemed and adjudged capable of choos- 
ing or being chosen Members of the Commons House of 
Assembly." The preamble states that " the far greatest part 
of the inhabitants in their respective counties of this Prov- 
ince, are at a considerable distance from the stated places 
of election, whereby they are at great expense of time and 
money, besides all other hazards in comeing to choose mem- 
bers of the Commons House of Assembly ;" and that " the 
several counties of this Province are divided into distinct 
parishes, so that in them elections for members of the Com- 
mons House of Assembly may be managed so as in a great 
measure to prevent the bad effects of the present manner of 
electing the said members." Following then the election 
laws of Barbadoes, as Mr. McCrady has pointed out, 4 the 
law provided for the use of the parishes, already established 
by the church acts of 1704 and 1706, as election districts; 
for the holding of elections in the churches or other con- 
venient places between sunrise and sunset on not more than 
two successive days; and appointed the church-wardens as 
managers of the elections. The existence of the paper ballot 
is shown by the following excerpts : 

" Upon the closing of the poll, at convenient hours in the time of the 
aforesaid election [the church wardens] shall put all the votes then 

"Carroll, Collections, II, 149. 2 Ibid. 

3 Statutes at Large, II, 683-691. 

4 McCrady, I, 560. See also election law of Barbadoes of 1709, Acts 
of Assembly of Barbadoes (London edition, 1721), pp. 266-274; and 
Section law of Jamaica, 1681, Laws of Jamaica (London, 1684). 



146 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

delivered in and rolled up by the electors, into some box, glass or 
paper, sealed up with the seals of any two or more of the electors that 
arc then present, and upon the opening of the poll, shall unseal the said 
glass or paper, in order to proceed in the said election." 
"... The names of the electors for members of the Commons 
House of Assembly, shall be fairly entered in a book or roll for that 
purpose provided by the church warden or church wardens of each 
parish, to prevent any persons voting twice at the same election, and 
that if in voting, two or more papers with persons names written 
thereon for members of Assembly, be (upon the scrutiny) found rolled 
up together, or more persons names be found written on any paper than 
ought to be voted for (to which paper the elector shall not be obliged 
to subscribe his name) all and every such paper and papers shall be 
invalid and of no effect. ..." 

The act went farther, however, than merely to establish 
the parish as the election division, for it introduced consider- 
able changes in the qualifications of voters and members of 
assembly. We have seen by the act of 1704, that electors 
must possess fifty acres of land or ten pounds value of per- 
sonal property, and they must have resided in the county at 
least three months before the election. The new act not only 
changed the existing residence and property qualifications, 
but also added religious and racial restrictions. Some fif- 
teen years earlier complaints had been made that among 
other unqualified persons, some Jews and negroes had voted. 
Under the law of 17 16 these classes were excluded. The 
act reads, 

" And whereas it is necessary and reasonable, that none but such 
persons who have an interest in this Province should be capable to 
elect or be elected members of the Commons House of Assembly, Be 
it enacted by the authority aforesaid, That every white man, and no 
other, professing the Christian religion, who hath attained to the age 
of one-and-twenty years, and hath been in this Province for the space 
of six months before the date of the writs for the election that he 
offers to give his vote at, and upon his oath, (if required by the church 
warden or church wardens, or any person present qualified to vote), be 
proved to be worth thirty pounds current money of this Province shall 
be deemed a person qualified to vote for and may be capable of electing 
a representative or representatives to serve as a member or members 
of the Commons House of Assembly for the parish or precinct wherein 
he actually is resident." 



The Suffrage in South Carolina. 147 

Members of the assembly were required to own five hun- 
dred pounds current money or five hundred acres of land in 
the parish for which they were chosen. Persons owning 
lands in certain parishes, temporarily deserted on account of 
the Indian war, were given the strange privilege of voting 
for representatives for the deserted parishes and not for the 
parishes in which they were temporarily resident. Fines 
were to be imposed upon officers making fraudulent returns, 
and upon persons bribing or intimidating voters. Voters 
were to be free from civil writs in going to and coming from 
and while at the place of election. 

From this summary of its provisions, it will be seen that 
the election act of 1716 established a considerably different 
basis for the suffrage. The franchise was now limited to 
white Christian male citizens over twenty-one years of age, 
who had been at least six months in the colony and who 
actually resided in the election district wherein they voted; 
and the fifty acres or ten pounds requirement now gave place 
to a uniform property qualification of thirty pounds current 
money. The latter phrase is not in itself intelligible unless 
it is understood that as early as 1702 the colony had issued 
paper money in the form of bills of credit. Subsequent emis- 
sions were made in 1706, 1707, 171 2, 1716; 1 and the value 
of the currency rapidly declined. By 1714 sterling ex- 
change was quoted at two hundred per cent, 2 and the end 
was not yet reached. It is safe to say that the thirty pounds 
currency in 1716 did not represent a greater purchasing 
power than that of ten pounds sterling. 

Weak places in the act of 171 6 were soon found, and 
scarcely six months after its passage, " an additional and ex- 
planatory act" was found necessary. We are told that dis- 
putes had arisen about the qualifications of voters and repre- 
sentatives, and that the meaning of the former act " hath 
been wrongfully wrested and perverted." 3 Judging from 
the negative provisions which were added, it would appear 
that apprentices or indentured servants, seafaring men, and 

1 McCrady, I, 524. 

1 Hewatt, I, 204; Statutes at Large, II, 713; Ramsay, History of 
South Carolina, II, 163. 
'Statutes at Large, III, 2. 




148 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 



Other transients had participated in the elections. The sup- 
plementary act of July 29, 1717, 1 made a number of minor 
changes, almost all of which must have worked towards a 
restriction of the suffrage. The elector was now required to 
reside in the parish — not merely in the province — six months 
before the election; his property qualification was changed 
from thirty pounds to fifty acres of freehold, or the payment 
of taxes for the support of the government upon property 
worth at least fifty pounds current money; and it was es- 
pecially stated that " no apprentice or other covenanted ser- 
vant for term of years, whether by indenture or by custom 
of the county, nor any seafaring or other transient man, who 
has neither freehold nor is liable to pay tax for a stock of 
fifty pounds current money" should be deemed capable of 
voting for representatives. Similar changes were made in 
the qualifications of a representative, who must be a free- 
born subject of Great Britain or the dominions belonging 
thereto, or a person naturalized by act of parliament in Great 
Britain or Ireland, twenty-one years of age, a resident of the 
province for twelve months, a resident of the parish which 
he represents, and possessed of five hundred acres of land in 
the parish or one thousand pounds value of houses, lots and 
lands in other parts of the province, or the same value of 
personal property. 2 

The evident purpose of this act was to approach more 
closely to the ideal already expressed in the law of 1716. 
" that none but such persons who have an interest in this 
Province should be capable to elect or be elected." The 
change in the property qualification from thirty to fifty 
pounds may have been due to a renewed depreciation of the 
currency after the issue of more paper money in 1716. 3 
requiring this property to be taxable, the ordinary personal 
property of uncertain value would be excluded, as the only 

tutes at Large, III, 2-4. 
" \ person owning a settled plantation of five hundred acres with ten 
able working negro slaves, under the care of at least one white man, 
within the county where the owner resides, might be elected for the 
parish where the plantation is situated, although not himself a resident 
of that parish. 
McCrady, I. 524. 



The Suffrage in South Carolina. 149 

taxable property at this time consisted of land and negroes. 1 
The strict residence requirements, both of voters and repre- 
sentatives, were also intended to include only those having 
w sufficient evidence of permanent common interest" 2 with 
the community ; yet these restrictions were at variance with 
the usual practice in the colonies and the uniform custom of 
England. 

But the work which the colonists had built up with such 
pains in the election acts of 171 6 and 171 7, the proprietors 
determined should be overthrown by a stroke of their nulli- 
fying pen. Trott and Rhett had been writing to England 
and urging the proprietors to disallow the election laws to- 
gether with several other recent acts. 3 Accepting their side 
of the question, the proprietors on July 22, 171 8, placed their 
veto upon the election laws. They say : 

" We have likewise read and considered two Acts of Assembly 
. . . and finding the said two Acts tend to the entire alteration and 
subversion of the Constitution of the Province of South Carolina, and 
are contrary to the laws and customs of Parliament in Great Britain, 
we therefore do declare the two last mentioned Acts to be null and 
void, and we do hereby repeal, nullifie and make void the said two 
Acts, and every clause, matter or thing therein contained whatsoever." * 

With the repeal of the election law the proprietors directed 
that the assembly should be dissolved, and a new one be 
elected in Charleston according to the old method. 5 The 
governor and council tried to conceal these instructions, but 
the substance of them became known and, joined to the dis- 
allowance of other popular laws, led to great excitement in 
the colony. Governor Johnson did not put himself in full 
accord with the popular sentiment, and, on the other hand, 
he received the proprietary reprimand for not carrying the 
orders into immediate execution. 6 

1 See tax act of 1721, Statutes at Large, III, 149-157. 

2 Virginia Bill of Rights, 1776, Section 6; the phraseology is most 
interestingly similar to the South Carolina act of 1716, Statutes at 
Large, II, 688. 

3 Carroll, Collections, II, 149 ; Hewatt, I, 232. 

* Statutes at Large, III, 31 ; McCrady, I, 626-628. 

3 Carroll, Collections, 150, 160. 6 Ibid., 158-159; Hewatt, I, 240. 246. 




150 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

" Thus the People were irritated and heated to a violent 
1 tegree, and the Basis of all Government being either Love, 
r or Interest, or perhaps any two, or a Mixture of all 
the three, but in this there was neither one nor the other." ' 
The popular movement increased in strength until a general 
ciation was formed in 1719, " to stand by their Rights 
and Privileges, and to get rid of the Oppression and Arbi- 
trary Dealings of the Lords Proprietors." 2 Governor John- 
son was requested by the leaders to assume the government 
under the King, and when he refused to do so, the assembly 
elected by his writs denied the authority of the proprie 
and the council, and called themselves " the Representatives 
of the People;" " a Convention, delegated by the People, to 
prevent the utter Ruin of this Government, if not the loss of 
the Province, until His Majesty's Pleasure be known." 3 
this Johnson replied : 

" It is not the People's Voting for you, that makes you become their 
Representatives ; the Leige People of this, nor any other Province have 
Power to convene and chuse their Representatives without being author- 
iz'd so to do by some Writ or Order coming from Authority lawfully 
impower'd." 4 

Finding Johnson firm in his intention to stand by the pro- 
prietary rights, the Convention elected Colonel James Moore 
as governor; opposed Johnson by force; and at last pro- 
vided for an election of councillors ; " so they had now their 
Governor, Council, and Convention (as they call'd them- 
selves)." 5 By this armed uprising of the people the pro- 
prietary authority in the colony was overthrown, and its 
place was taken by a revolutionary government which 
looked, not in vain, to the English government for recogni- 
tion. The de facto subversion of the proprietors' govern- 
ment in the colony in 1719 was followed by a dc jure denial 
of their power by the Crown's officials in England, and by 

1 Carroll, Collections, II, 160. 
1 Ibid.. 165. 
■ Ibid., 168-169. 

id.. 176. 
'Ibid.. 180-183. 



The Suffrage in South Carolina. 151 

the appointment of a royal governor and a provisional gov- 
ernment in September, 1720. 1 

Before this contest had reached its final stage still another 
election law had been passed. 2 This act of March 20, 1718- 
19 expressed in strong language the popular satisfaction 
with the new method of holding elections : 

"The choosing members of the Commons House of Assembly for 
this Province, by parishes or precincts, had been found by experience 
to be the most easy, just and least expensive and hazardous method 
that can be devised and approaches nearest to the form and method of 
choosing or electing members in other his Majesty's dominions and 
plantations, and not liable to the inconveniences that attended any other 
method heretofore used or practised in this Province." 

The act continued the suffrage requirements of the act of 
1 71 7, but it strengthened the prohibition upon servants by 
inserting the word free in the phrase describing the voting 
class ; thereby limiting the franchise to " every free white 
man (and no other)/' who possessed the several require- 
ments as laid down in the former act. 

The property qualifications of assemblymen were changed 
considerably. The representative was no longer required to 
be a resident of the district he represented, nor must he pos- 
sess the necessary property within the district. The personal 
property qualification was, however, omitted, and the new 
requirement was the possession within the province of a 
settled plantation of five hundred acres with six slaves upon 
it, or one thousand pounds value in houses, buildings, town 
lots, or other lands in any part of the province. The method 
of balloting shows clearly that provision was made for a 
secret ballot: 

" Each person qualified to vote as is above directed shall put into a 
box or sheet of paper prepared for that purpose by the said church- 
wardens or other persons, as is above directed, a piece of paper rolled 
up, wherein is written the name of the Representatives he votes for, 
and to which paper the elector shall not be obliged to subscribe his 
name." 

*We cannot here enter into the English side of this story. For a 
full account, see McCrady, I, 665-673. 
8 Statutes at Large, III, 50-55. 



[52 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

A few other minor changes were made particularly in the 
apportionment of representatives, but with the exception of 
the qualifications of assemblymen, the act of 1718-19 fol- 
lowed closely the terms of the act of 1717. The opinions so 

.pressed in the preamble did not deter the ; 
prietors from still further opposing public sentiment, and on 
July 24, [719, they write that they " can by no means con- 
sent" to the act. 1 The controversy about the election acts 
then became a prominent cause of the revolution of 1 719, 
and one of the first resolutions which the "convention" 
adopted was one declaring certain of the repealed acts to be 
still in force. 2 In February, 1719-20, when the convention 
had decided that they were again an assembly, they declared 
the election act of 17 18-19 to be in force, 3 and it was so 
treated until formally repealed about a year and a half later. 

South Carolina's overthrow of the proprietary govern- 
ment was thus intimately associated with the right of free- 
dom of elections. After 1716, the assembly was engaged in 
passing many important economic measures, and the people 
of the province undoubtedly felt that these measures could 
not be attained without a more reasonable process of elect- 
ing their representatives. The people could not be ade- 
quately represented, nor could the elections be kept free from 
undue influence so long as Charleston was the only polling- 
place. In South Carolina, as in Georgia, a true representa- 
tive system could be gained only by overthrowing the per- 
sonal control of proprietors or trustees, and accepting the 
royal form of government, in which, by this time, a definite 
and adequate svstem of representation was a fundamental 
fact. 

The provisional royal government had been in power but 
a short time when still another election law was passed, and 
the earlier ones repealed. Governor Nicholson's instruc- 
tions 4 may have tended to restrict the suffrage, for they di- 
rected him to permit freeholders only to vote for represen- 

1 Statutes at Large, III, 69. 

2 McCrady, I, 649 ; Hewatt, I, 259. 

3 Statutes at Large, III, 103 ; act of February 12, 1719-20. 

' Collections S. C. Hist. Soc., II, 145-147. Analyzed in McCrady. 
History of South Carolina under the Royal Government, 25-33. 



The Suffrage in South Carolina. 153 

tatives, while the law of 1 718-19 had given the right to 
freeholders of fifty acres, or persons owning taxable prop- 
erty to the amount of fifty pounds current money. Nichol- 
son's first assembly in September, 1721, therefore, revised 
the election laws, changing but slightly the machinery of 
election or the qualifications of representatives, but imposing 
new qualifications upon voters. 1 

"Every free white man, and no other person, professing the Chris- 
tian religion, who has attained to the age of one and twenty years, and 
hath been a resident and an inhabitant in this Province for the space 
of one whole year before the date of the writs for the election he 
offers to give his vote at, and hath a freehold of at least fifty acres of 
land, or hath been taxed in the precedent year twenty shillings, or is 
taxed twenty shillings the present year, to the support of this Govern- 
ment, shall be deemed a person qualified to vote for, and may be capable 
of electing a representative or representatives to serve as a member or 
members of the Commons House of Assembly, for the parish or pre- 
cinct wherein he actually is a resident, or in any other parish or pre- 
cinct wherein he hath the like qualifications." 

It will be noticed that the provisions of the acts of 171 7 
and 1 719 requiring a voter to be a resident for six months of 
the parish in which he votes, are now changed to a require- 
ment of a residence in the province for one year. The fifty 
acres freehold is still retained; but the fifty pounds taxable 
property gives place to the annual payment of twenty shill- 
ings taxes. 

The tax-paying basis for the suffrage does not ostensibly 
conform to the governor's instructions calling for elections 
by the freeholders; but an inspection of the tax-laws of 
the time during which this act was in force (1 721-1745) 
shows that freeholders or slaveholders were practically the 
only taxpayers. Thus the rates of 1721 placed a levy of five 
shillings upon every one hundred acres of land, and an un- 
certain amount upon every negro, mulatto or Indian slave. 2 
A person who paid twenty shillings taxes would thus own 
eight times the minimum amount of land required for the 

1 Statutes at Large, III, 135-140. 

2 Ibid., 149-157. 



i 54 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

suffrage, or else be a slaveholder. 1 In 1724 the rates were 
again five shillings on the hundred acres of land, and a defi- 
nite tax of twenty shillings on each slave between the years 
seven and sixty.- This act shows the relative values of 
land and negroes, for it practically makes one slave equiva- 
lent in value to four hundred acres of land. Down to 1734, 
it may be presumed that the tax-paying qualification for the 
suffrage limited that privilege to landholders and slave- 
holders. After 1734 a tax on mercantile stocks and cash, 
and later upon all white male persons was laid ; 3 but these 
do not appear to have been permanent. In 1739 the taxes 
are only ten shillings on slaves and ten shillings on every 
one hundred acres of land. 4 

For over twenty years after 1721 the election act re- 
mained unchanged. 5 Governor Johnson's instruction^ 
1729 again directed that the assembly should be elected by 
the freeholders ; 6 but it was not until after Governor Glen's 
arrival in the colony that any change was made. By a sub- 
sequent letter Glen shows his opposition to the ballot which 
had been a part of South Carolina's elections from the first; 
and he may have been the author or proposer of the measure 
which limited the suffrage in 1745. The act of May 25, of 
that year, plainly tells its purpose in the title, " An Act for 
enlarging the qualifications of the Electors, as well as of 
the Persons to be elected to serve as Members of the General 
Assembly of this Province." 7 

Beyond the purposes given in the preamble of this act, I 

1 The act provided for the raising of £17,248 6d. by a tax of five 
shillings on each one hundred acres of land ; and a pro rata assessment 
of the remainder upon all the negro, Indian, Mustee, and mulatto 
slaves between the years of seven and sixty. 

\ct of May 24, 1724, Statutes at Large, III, 238-245. 

8 Statutes at Large, III, 386, 438. 

'Ibid., 527. 

* It has been said that the act of 1721 was disallowed in 1730; but if 
such is the case, the disallowance was not recognized in the colony; 
E. L. Whitney, The Government of the Colony of South Carolina, J. 
H. U. Studies. XIII, 49. 

•McCrady, II, 93. 

T Statutes at Large, III, 656. 



The Suffrage in South Carolina. 155 

have found no reason for its passage. We are told that " it 
may be of evil consequence to give a right to any person or 
persons to vote . . . who are late residents, and are not 
possessed of a sufficient freehold and personal estate, and it 
may be of equal detriment to admit any person or persons to 
seive as Members of Assembly who are not amply quali- 
fied." The act is, therefore, passed for " the augmenting 
and enlarging the qualifications" of both elected and elect- 
ors. The " augmentation" consisted in changing the quali- 
fication from the holding of fifty acres of freehold or the 
pa}onent of twenty shillings taxes, to the following form : 

" Every free white man, and no other person, professing the Chris- 
tian religion, who has attained to the age of twenty-one years, and hath 
been a resident and inhabitant in this Province for the space of one 
year before the date of the writs issued for that election for which he 
offers to give his vote at, and hath a freehold estate in a settled planta- 
tion, or not less than three hundred acres of land unsettled, for which 
he paid tax the precedent year, or hath a freehold in houses, lands or 
town lots, or parts thereof, of the value of sixty pounds proclamation 
money, in Charleston, or any other town in this Province, for which 
he paid tax the precedent year, shall be deemed a person qualified to 
vote for and is hereby declared capable of joining in the election for a 
representative or representatives to serve as a member or members of 
the Assembly for that parish or precinct wherein he is actually a resi- 
dent, or in any other parish or precinct where he hath the like qualifi- 
cations." 

The radical nature of the changes introduced by this act 
can be seen when it is noticed, that, for the first time since 
1692, the suffrage is placed solely upon a freehold basis, a 
policy which the act of 1759 reversed. Again, this free- 
hold requisite was now considerably " augmented ;" the sim- 
ple fifty acres being replaced by either (1) a settled plan- 
tation, or (2) unsettled but taxable land to the amount of 
:hree hundred acres, or (3) other forms of real estate to the 
value of sixty pounds proclamation money. 1 These pro- 
visions must have raised the qualifications to about five or 

1 £100 sterling was worth about £133 proclamation money ; while at 
his time (1745) the South Carolina currency was circulating at the 
atio of £700 currency to £100 sterling (Hewatt, II, 14). 



The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

hat they had previously been. I have found no 
facts to show to what extent they cut down the actual num- 
ber of voters, but, especially in Charleston, the act must have 
excluded some of the poorer electors. 

The aristocratic features of the act were further increased 
by permitting plural voting, and giving the freeholder a vote 
in any parish in which he was properly qualified. 1 The same 
tendency is seen in the higher qualifications of representa- 
tives, who were now required to possess a settled plantation 
or freehold of five hundred acres of land with twenty sla 
over and above all indebtedness, or value of one thousand 
pounds proclamation money in houses, lots or other lands in 
the province clear of all debts. The passage of such a law 
is evidence of a decided increase in the economic well-being 
of the governing classes, for it is unlikely the assembly 
would pass such a law unless they expected the approval of 
their constituents. It is proof, too, that the artisan and mer- 
cantile classes of the town were politically insignificant ; and 
furnishes indirect evidence of the truth of Hewatt's state- 
ment that the merchants, artisans, and tradesmen established 
themselves upon plantations in the country as soon as they 
had accumulated sufficient capital to buy the necessary sla 
and lands. 2 The act is a result, not a cause, of the economic 
and political predominance of the planter in South Carolina 
life. 

Whatever may have been Governor Glen's share in the 
passage of this election law, there can be no doubt that he 
was opposed to the democratic secret ballot of South Caro- 
lina, and wished to displace it by the English method of : 
voce voting. Writing to the English authorities he ur 
the abolition of many elective offices in both church and 
state ; and said that the colony would be safer the closer it 
adhered " to the customs at home." Elections by ballot 
should also be avoided because " any person who attends the 

1 It is said that large property owners took advantage of this clause 
to vote in several parishes; and that the practice later resulted in sec- 
tional controversy between the low country and the uplands. Se<. 
A. Schafer, Sectionalism and Representation in South Carolina, Amtr. 
Hist. Assn. Report, 1900, I, 352. 

1 See Hewatt. IT, 127-130. 



The Suffrage in South Carolina. 157 

balloting box, may with a very little slight of hand, give the 
election to whom he pleases.' ' x He further criticised the 
method of apportionment of representatives by which some 
places received no representation and others obtained far 
more than their just share. So far as we can see these 
propositions of Governor Glen's were without result. 

Only one more election law was passed between 1745 and 
the Revolution. This was the act of April 7, 1759, 2 which 
changed the suffrage in the direction of a wider electorate. 
The preamble to this act was similar to that of the act of 
1745, and gives no hint to the reader that the law may bring 
about an extension of the suffrage. The section defining the 
qualifications of electors is more elaborate than any hereto- 
fore adopted. 

" From and after the determination of this present General Assem- 
bly, every free white man, and no other person, professing the Prot- 
estant religion, who shall have obtained the age of twenty-one years, 
and shall have been a resident and inhabitant in this Province for the 
space of one year, at any time before the date of the writ to be issued 
for that election at which he shall offer to give his vote, and shall have 
a freehold estate in a settled plantation, or not less than one hundred 
acres of land unsettled, for which he shall have paid tax the preceding 
year, or shall have a freehold estate in houses, lands or town lots or 
parts thereof, of the value of sixty pounds proclamation money situate 
in Charleston, or any other town in this Province, for which he shall 
have paid tax the preceding year, or shall have paid the sum of ten 
shillings proclamation money for his own proper tax the preceding year, 
shall be deemed a person qualified to vote for, and is hereby declared 
capable of voting at the election of, a representative or representatives, 
to serve as a member or members of the Assembly, for the parish or 
precinct where such elector shall be actually resident, or for any other 
parish or precinct where he shall have the like qualifications." 

The most striking innovation of the act is the substitution 
of the word " Protestant" for " Christian" used in all the 
earlier laws. We are again, unfortunately, left without any 
reason for the change, and it seems the more remarkable 
that the exclusion of Catholics from the suffrage should 

1 Collections of S. C. Hist. Soc, II, 305. 
7 Statutes at Large, IV, 98-101. 



158 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

come at sucli a late time. Such treatment has been noticed 
in many of the other colonies, but in them it came early in 
the eighteenth century, when the restoration of the exiled 
Stuarts was not yet considered an impossibility. 

In South Carolina in 1759 there could be no fear of the 
Stuarts, but a number of Catholics had about two years 
earlier been brought into the province. It may be that the 
act was directed against these French Acadians, who had 
been dispersed by the English government, and over a thou- 
sand of whom arrived at the port of Charleston ; * but of this 
I have found no proof. 

Important changes were also made in the property quali- 
fications of voters. Four alternatives were now offered to 
the prospective voter ; he might vote by virtue of the owner- 
ship of a settled plantation as formerly ; or by owning one 
hundred acres of unsettled taxable lands in place of the 
earlier three hundred acres ; or on account of sixty pounds 
value in proclamation money of houses, lots or lands in any 
town in the province; or by virtue of the payment of ten 
shillings (proclamation money) taxes during the preceding 
year. The country franchise was thus extended by lower- 
ing the alternative qualification from three hundred to one 
hundred acres of freehold; and, on the other hand, 
likely the suffrage among the town population was extended 
by permitting those paying a certain amount of taxes to vote 
in the assembly elections. Looking at the tax-assessments 
at about this time, it is to be noticed that the earlier restric- 
tion of taxes to slaves and land is not retained; but in 1758, 
in addition to taxing slaves thirty-six shillings each and 
land at the same amount for each one hundred acres ; a tax 
of eighteen shillings was also assessed upon every one hun- 
dred pounds at interest, four per cent, of the income 
levied upon annuities, and cattle, when a person owned over 
thirty, were taxed two shillings and six pence a head. 2 In 
proclamation money these taxes would be only one-fifth the 
amounts stated in the law. Yet making allowance for the 
difference in the value in money, it is evident that the ten 
shillings tax would open the suffrage to some persons, par- 

1 McCrady, II, 326. See also Statutes at Large, IV, 31. 
'Act of May 19, 1758; Statutes at Large, IV, 54. 




The Suffrage in South Carolina. 1 59 

ticularly in the towns, who did not possess the necessary 
freehold qualification. 

It has been said that the causes for the passage of the law 
of 1759 have not been found by the writer. It is interesting 
to note, however, that only three years later, the Virginia 
legislature also passed an act which extended the suffrage; 
and the questions naturally arise, whether there were any 
conditions in the southern colonies in the fifteen years pre- 
ceding the Revolution which called for an extension of the 
suffrage, and if so, in what way this extension of the suf- 
frage affected the revolutionary movement in that part of the 
country ? The records are not yet available for the prepara- 
tion of answers to these questions. 

Little need be said concerning the local suffrage of South 
Carolina, for, apart from the parish officers, there were ab- 
solutely no local elective officials. An instruction of May, 
1 67 1, had provided for the monthly election by the inhabi- 
tants of every town of " one or two of ye discreetest men" 
to " truck w th ye Indians for Beades ;" * but this regular ap- 
portionment of the Indian trade does not appear to have 
been made. In 1697 the proprietors proposed the erection 
of Charleston into a municipal corporation, 2 but such a step 
was not taken until almost ninety years later, when both the 
proprietary and royal governments had been displaced. 3 
Under both of these governments the affairs of Charleston 
were controlled by commissioners appointed by acts of the 
legislature, vacancies in whose numbers were sometimes 
filled by themselves or by the appointment of the governor. 4 
Local officers to look after roads, bridges, and the naviga- 
tion of small streams were appointed in the same way. 5 

It was in the parish alone, therefore, that any popular 
election for local officials took place, and this parish election 
system was a remarkably liberal one. Instead of the perma- 
nent close corporation of the Virginia parish, the South 

1 Rivers, Sketch, Appendix, 368. 

2 Collections S. C. Hist Soc, I, 142. 

8 The city was incorporated in 1783 by act of legislature ; see Statutes 
it Large, VII, 97. 
4 Statutes at Large, VII, S3, 55, 59, 74, 89. 
6 Ibid., 478, 480, 485, 495 ; IX, 49-57, 163, 184, 190, 203, 229, 246, etc. 



160 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

Carolina vestrymen were chosen annually, and the ministers 
were elected by the people and not by the vestry. Parishes 
in South Carolina were erected by the act of 1704, 1 entitled 
" An Act for the Establishment of Religious Worship in 
this Province, according to the Church of England, and for 
the erecting of Churches for the Publick Worship of God, 
and Ministers and the building convenient Houses for 
them." The electors, both of the ministers and vestrymen, 
were to be conformists to the Church of England, inhabi- 
tants of the parish, and either freeholders or taxpayers of 
the parish. 

" The severall rectors or ministers of the severall parishes shall be 
chosen by the major part of the inhabitants of the said parish, that are 
of the religion of the Church of England and conform to the same, 
and are either freeholders within the same parish, or that contribute 
to the publick taxes and charges thereof." 2 

No change in this method of electing vestrymen or ministers 
was made by the great Church Act of 1 706, 3 nor by the sub- 
sequent acts relating to the subject during the colonial 
period. The suffrage here was broader than in Maryland, 
where an elector must be a tax-paying freeholder of the 
parish ; but it did not differ much from the freeholders and 
housekeepers of the Virginia parish elections. The most 
marked distinction between the South Carolina vestry and 
those of her neighbors was in the fact of its annual election ; 
and this proved a most desirable feature, by which the in- 
conveniences, carelessness and even corruption of the North 
Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland vestries were avoided. 
To this annual election of vestrymen and the popular elec- 
tion of ministers much of the strength of the South Caro- 
lina church has been attributed; but there can be no doubt 
that other economic and religious influences aided what 
would otherwise have been only a piece of ecclesiastical 
machinery. Perhaps the feature which made the South 
Carolina vestry government so successful as compared with 

1 Act of November 4, 1704, Statutes at Large, II, 236-246. 

'Ibid., 239. 

3 Act of November 30, 1706, Statutes at Large, II. 282-294. 



A 

The Suffrage in South Carolina. 161 

that of North Carolina or Virginia was the fact that only 
members of the Church of England could vote for vestry- 
men or ministers. 

In conclusion, then, we may summarize the suffrage pro- 
visions here noticed. South Carolina began with an elector- 
ate, which, on account of the ease of securing land, was 
practically synonymous with free manhood. Some mer- 
chants and artisans later settled in the colony, particularly 
in Charleston, and a tax-paying or personal property quali- 
fication was made an alternative with the freehold basis. 
From 1692 onward, with the exception of the interval from 
1745 to 1759, the laws were so worded that landless men 
might vote, if they paid sufficient taxes or owned a certain 
amount of personal property. Perhaps unconsciously, the 
proprietors at first encouraged popular elections, by their 
anxiety to establish a parliament in the form provided for 
in the fundamental constitutions. Later they opposed a 
more popular elective system, and for this reason as well as 
others lost their province. The suffrage question comes 
very prominently to the front in colonial politics in South 
Carolina. On three occasions it is the principal theme be- 
fore the people; first in the last decade of the seventeenth 
century in connection with the political status of the Hugue- 
nots; secondly, in the first decade of the eighteenth century 
when it took the form of irregularities in elections and an 
attempt to establish religious qualifications of representa- 
tives; and, thirdly, in 1716-1719, when there arose a popu- 
lar demand for a method of election which would permit a 
more accurate representation of the community. Under the 
royal government the suffrage franchise did not become a 
cause of popular excitement. Three great laws were passed 
bearing upon the subject, those of 1721, 1745, 1759; but 
these laws do not appear to have been the result of popular 
clamor or interest. 

The voter throughout the whole period must be a male 
person over twenty-one years of age; after 171 6 he must 
De of the Christian religion, and of the white race. In 1717 
ipprentices and servants were prohibited from voting, and 
n 1718-19 the word "free" was inserted before "white 
nan;" while in 1759 the word "Protestant" was substi- 

11 



[62 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

tutcd for " Christian." Before 1696-97 there was appar- 
ently no residence qualification upon voters, but from that 
year a residence of three months was required. This was 
raised to six months in 1716 and to one year in 1719, at 
which point it remained throughout the colonial period. The 
property qualification of fifty acres freehold prescribed by 
the fundamental constitutions may have been observed in 
the early years; but from 1692 to 1716 the elector was per- 
mitted an alternative of the ten pounds property (presum- 
ably real or personal). In the latter year the requirement 
was simply thirty pounds current money, but in 171 7 this 
was changed to fifty acres of land or fifty pounds cum 
value in taxable property; and the latter alternative 
again changed in 1 718-19 to the payment of a tax of twi 
shillings. In 1745 the tax-paying basis is abolished, and the 
fifty acres gives place to a settled plantation or three hun- 
dred acres of unsettled land or sixty pounds proclamation 
money value in town houses or lands. Lastly, in 1759 the 
unsettled freehold was cut down to one hundred acres, and 
the tax-paying basis was restored. 

The student of the suffrage in this colony is impressed by 
the breadth of the suffrage in a community which posse- 
so many features of economic aristocracy. Frequent popu- 
lar elections both in church and state were open to the free- 
holders and taxpayers of the colony upon a comparatively 
broad basis. And these elections, at first perhaps condn 
by the subscribing of names to one sheet of paper or 
proxy voting, soon came to be determined solely by written 
paper ballots deposited by the voter himself in some crude 
form of a ballot-box. The viva voce voting of the free- 
holder of New York or Virginia here gives way to the 
democratic ballot of the South Carolina taxpayer. 



CHAPTER VI. 

The Suffrage in Georgia. 

Peculiar circumstances attended the settlement of Geor- 
gia. The experience of the recent Indian and Spanish wars 
had demonstrated the weakness of the southern frontier, 1 
and a plan which would populate this border land with Eng- 
lish paupers and debtors, thus serving both utilitarian and 
charitable purposes, commended itself to the Crown as 
" highly becoming." As so frequently the case in philan- 
thropic enterprises, the recipients of the charity in Georgia 
were expected passively to take what was given, and Oliver 
Twists were not included in the calculations of Oglethorpe 
or the other trustees. Thus it happened that a type of gov- 
ernment similar to the petty military despotism in Old Vir- 
ginia was established in another colony a century and a quar- 
ter after the Virginia settlement was made. 

The royal charter of June 9, 1732, placed the colony in 
the control of the twenty trustees and their associates or 
successors, who, in their legislative powers, were restricted 
only by the necessity of submitting their laws for approval 
to the king in council, and the limitation that the laws, con- 
stitutions or ordinances be not repugnant to the laws of 
England. 2 During the term of twenty-one years, all persons 
in the colony were to be subject to laws made in this man- 
ner. The corporation had the right for the same period to 
appoint such governors, judges, magistrates or other civil 
and military officers as were thought fit and needful ; at the 
end of twenty-one years the colony should be given a form 
of government and manner of passing laws determined by 
the king, and receive a governor appointed by the Crown. 3 

Under the terms of this charter the settlers received a 

1 Preamble to Georgia charter, Poore, Charters and Constitutions, I, 
369. 

2 Ibid., 373-374 
' Ibid., 377- 

163 



164 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

surfeit of paternal legislation. The trustees met in London 
in July. 1732, to begin the work of organizing the colony, 1 
and in the rules for settlement they never lost sight of the 
military purpose of the colony. The settlers were provided 
with tools and arms; their land allotments were to be laid 
out in the neighborhood of towns and must not exceed fifty 
acres in amount for each family; the lands were held • 
military tenure, and to make this sure, they were entailed in 
the male line. The land must be cultivated within twelve 
months after the grant, and the settler was required to plant 
at least one hundred white mulberry trees for every ten 
acres that he cleared, 2 in order to encourage the silk culture, 
which was a favorite project of the trustees. Slavery 
forbidden because it might injure the poor free laborers, and 
a little later the manufacture or trade in rum or brandy 
prohibited. 3 

The colony which settled at Savannah in 1733 was under 
the control of Oglethorpe. No provision was made for a 
general organization of the colony except in his person. A 
town court composed of three bailiffs and a recorder assisted 
by two constables and two tithingmen was established 
Savannah before the expedition left England, 4 but this court 
possessed only judicial powers, while all other governmental 
authority rested in their leader. It is difficult to define the 
authority so exercised, for it extended to any economic, 
political or military policy which seemed necessary to Ogle- 
thorpe. There can be no question that in the main he used 
the authority with discretion, and on some occasions even 
called meetings of the inhabitants to discuss the affairs of the 
colony. 5 But generally he issued orders as would a mili- 
tary commander, without consultation with any one. 6 Such 
action, while it may have been necessary, often led to dis- 
content among those who felt themselves injured by it. 7 

1 Hugh M'Call, The History of Georgia, I. 16. 

2 Ibid., 22. 

8 Ibid., 25, 29. 

* Collections of Georgia Historical Society. I. 95. 177: II. 282. 

•'.. II. in. 239. 
•Ibid., 109; HI. 73. 
1 Ibid., II. 146-149: Steven>. History of Georgia, I. 220 i 



The Suffrage in Georgia. 165 

The single town court of Savannah was later joined by a 
second one at Frederica, 1 and both were supported by ap- 
propriations from the Trustees' treasury. 2 The officials of 
these courts were appointed by the Trustees, while the 
settlers exercised no share whatever in their government. 3 
Next to Oglethorpe, by far the most powerful man in the 
colony, was the keeper of the Trustees' store, from which 
supplies were distributed to the inhabitants. This officer, 
sometimes also holding the position of bailiff of Savannah, 
possessed almost the power of life and death over the 
settlers; and he is described by one grand jury as having 
" the dangerous power in his hands of alluring weak-minded 
people, to comply with unjust measures, and also overawing 
others, from making just complaints and representations" to 
the Trustees. 4 

Oglethorpe's personal government continued until 1741, 
when the Trustees divided the province into two counties, 
established a president and four assistants as a governing 
board at Savannah, and promised the same form of gov- 
ernment for Frederica. 5 But Oglethorpe retained his per- 
sonal control of affairs in the south along the Spanish 
frontier, and the Frederica county organization was never es- 
tablished. Upon the General's return to England, the presi- 
dent and assistants at Savannah were, in 1743, declared the 
supreme political authority for the whole colony ; 6 and in 
this form the government continued until the surrender to 
the Crown. Throughout the period of trusteeship there 
were no regular elections, either for local or general officers, 
and no lawful representative system whatever. 

But if the Trustees did not grant a popular government, 
they could not prevent occasional meetings of the settlers,, 
nor could they stifle the petitions of Englishmen seeking 
redress of grievances. Both the charity-settlers and the 

1 Coll. Ga. Hist. Soc, II, 95, 292. 

'Ibid., II, 307; III, 90. Augusta may have received one magistrate 
(ibid., II, 95). 
3 Ibid., II, 160-161, 202, 233, 282. 
'Ibid., 141, 233. 

5 Stevens, I, 224-225 ; Jones, History of Georgia, I, 416. 
* Stevens, I, 226. 



i Co The Sufi' rage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

volunteers found themselves narrowly hedged in by the 
theoretical rules of the Trustees respecting land tenures, quit- 
rents, the silk culture, the rum traffic, and the use of negro 
slaves. The multitude of grievances might, in other col- 
onies where the danger of Spanish or Indian warfare did 
not exist, and where the Trustees' store did not dispense 
its blessings, have led to actual rebellion; but here it pro- 
duced a great emigration to South Carolina, and called forth 
a crop of protests, petitions and representations to the Eng- 
lish authorities. 

In the preparation of these petitions the colonists fre- 
quently used the old English institution of the grand jury, 
which was as near as they ever reached to a legal represen- 
tative body. At other times the protests were the fruit of 
simple gatherings of the freeholders and inhabitants. In 
July, 1735, only two years after the settlement, the free- 
holders signed a petition representing to the Trustees the 
expensiveness of white servants, the profitableness of negro 
slavery, and protesting against the acts of the store-keeper, 
who had ruled all the other magistrates, so that they became 
" in a manner but ciphers." 1 In 1737 the grand jury again 
protested against the acts of the store-keeper, Thomas Caus- 
ton; they asked for more servants, and particularly they 
pointed out " the many inconveniences, for want of a body 
of the laws and constitutions of this province." 2 In 1738 
a still stronger movement led to the signing of a petition 
by 117 freeholders and settlers, praying for a modification 
of the land system and for the admission of negro slaves : 3 
and in 1740, twenty- four of the " most respectable" settlers 
petitioned for the privilege of introducing slaves. 4 

The popular dissatisfaction reached a higher plane of 
organization in 1741. On the seventh of October, of that 
year, a meeting " of Landholders, Settlers and Inhabitants'" 
was held at Savannah to discuss their grievances and the 
best mode of obtaining redress. The assembly appointed 
Thomas Stevens as agent to represent the facts to vari 

1 Coll. Ga. Hist. Soc, II, 200-201 ; Stevens, I, 290. 

1 Coll. Ga. Hist. Soc, II, 141, 211; Stevens, I, 200. 

1 Coll. Ga. Hist. Soc, II, 217-222; Stevens, I, 279, 295, 297. 

4 Stevens, I, 291. 



The Suffrage in Georgia. 167 

officials in England, and then selected a committee of corre- 
spondence composed of five persons. The proceedings of 
this meeting are signed by 123 persons, and letters favoring 
its actions were received from eighteen absentees. 1 In the 
instructions which the committee of correspondence gave to 
the agent, he was told to solicit " That a regular govern- 
ment be established in Georgia, as in other of his Majesty's 
provinces in America," 2 as well as the various economic 
reforms which had been previously demanded. 

Gradually some of the reforms were granted. The new 
general government under president and assistants was an 
improvement over the local courts ; the land laws were soon 
made less strict; and the prohibition of the rum trade was 
removed. Even the prohibition of slavery, the last ideal of 
the Trustees, was broken down by the hiring of slaves on 
long term leases from their Carolina owners. 3 Yet an ac- 
count published in London in 1743 said the colony was a 
failure, and gave a list of the causes for its ill-success. 4 
These were said to be ( 1 ) the too flattering descriptions of 
the land circulated in Europe; (2) the entailment of estates 
in the male line; (3) restrictions upon the sale of lands; (4) 
restrictions upon the size of land grants; (5) the various re- 
quirements with respect to the clearing, fencing and plant- 
ing of lands; (6) higher quit-rents than the richest lands 
in America could bear; (7) the prohibition of negro labor; 
and certain political disadvantages which were expressed as 
follows : 

"8. The denying us the privilege of being judged by the laws of our 
mother country; and subjecting the lives and fortunes of all people in 
the colony to one person or set of men, who assumed the privilege, 
under the name of a Court of Chancery, of acting according to their 
own will and fancy. 

"9. General Oglethorpe's taking upon him to nominate magistrates, 
appoint justices of the peace, and to do many other such things, with- 

^oll. Ga. Hist. Soc, II, 153-154; Stevens, I, 300; Jones, I, 416. 
1 Coll. Ga. Hist. Soc, II, 155. 

'For this gradual introduction of negroes, see M'Call, I, 206 f f . ; 
Stevens, I, 285-312. 
* Coll. Ga. Hist. Soc, II, 262-263. 



1 68 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

out ever exhibiting to the people any legal commission or authority 
for so doing." l 

Popular elections and a representative system at last de- 
veloped out of the widespread desire for the introduction of 
slavery. Early in 1749 another public meeting had been 
held, and another petition praying for liberty to introduce 
slaves was drawn up. The president and assistants called 
in some of " the principal People of the Colony," 2 and upon 
their advice drew up the petition and a set of proposed regu- 
lations governing the slave system. The petition was signed 
by the president, assistants and many of the inhabitants, and 
certified with the town seal of Savannah. 3 This meeting 
and petition are the true germ of popular government in the 
colony. When the action of the Georgia officers and in- 
habitants became known in England, the Trustees at last 
resolved to permit the introduction of slavery under certain 
restrictions. And upon sending their proposed regulations 
to the president of the colony they say, " as you took into 
Consultation with you upon this Affair several of the prin- 
cipal People of the Colony, when you propos'd the Regula- 
tions which occurr'd to you, you must assemble such again 
that they may see the Regulations upon which the Trustees 
think proper to form the Act." 4 In this manner, the slave 
question led to the first assembly of citizens which met under 
the authority and with the approval of the Trustees. 

In October, 1749, a convention which met in accordance 
with this instruction was composed of about twenty-seven 
persons, 5 chosen from the different districts. 6 I have found 
no record of the method of choice in the localities, nor of the 
manner of assignment of representatives. In the absence 
of any law upon the subject, the elections, if held at all, 
must have been managed quite informally. The assembly 

1 Coll. Ga. Hist. Soc, II, 262-263. 

2 Jones, I, 422. 

3 Ibid., 422-423; Stevens, I, 311. 

4 Jones, I, 423; M'Call, I, 209; Stevens, I, 311. 

5 So says Stevens, and Jones, of course, follows him ; M'Call £ 
only twenty-three representatives. 

• M'Call, I, 209. 




The Suffrage in Georgia. 169 

adopted substantially all the regulations suggested by the 
Trustees, and then the members signed their names to a 
paper requesting the introduction of slavery under these 
restrictions. The twenty-seven signers are said to be of the 
" highest respectability in the province." 1 

This extraordinary assembly was followed shortly by pro- 
vision for an annual meeting of representatives, who were 
to meet not for purposes of legislation, but in order that the 
Trustees might be made acquainted with the state of the 
province, " the better to enable them to procure all the ad- 
vantages they can for the good of the people, and provide 
for the welfare and security of the province." 2 The assem- 
bly was to meet for not longer than one month " at the most 
leisure time," in each year. Every village, town, or dis- 
trict having ten families settled within its limits, was en- 
titled to send a representative, and those having thirty 
families could " depute two persons." Savannah should 
have four deputies; Augusta and Ebenezer each two, and 
Frederica, if thirty families were inhabiting there, the same 
number. 3 

The assembly could only " propose, debate, and represent 
to the Trustees what shall appear to them to be for the bene- 
fit, not only of each particular settlement, but for the prov- 
ince in general ;" 4 since legislative power was by the charter 
vested solely in the Trustees. The representatives were to 
furnish an account of the population, land cultivation, negro 
servitude, and productions of the districts which they 
severally represented. No qualifications for the suffrage 
were set, but those of representatives were established in the 
strangest manner. 

" From and after the 24th day of June, 1751, no person shall be 
capable of being chosen a deputy who has not one hundred mulberry 
trees planted, and properly fenced, upon every fifty acres he possesses ; 
and that from and after the 24th day of June, 1753, no person shall be 
capable of being chosen a deputy who has not strictly conformed to 

1 Stevens, I, 312 ; Jones, I, 425 ; M'Call, I, 209 f f. 

2 Stevens, I, 245. 

3 Stevens, I, 246 ; Jones, I, 434-435 ; M'Call, I, 231. 
*Ibid. 



170 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

the limitation of the number of negro slaves in proportion to his white 
servants, who has not at least one female in his family instructed in 
the art of reeling silk, and who does not yearly produce fifteen pounds 
of silk upon fifty acres of land, and the like quantity upon every fifty- 
acres he possesses." ■ 

" Thus tenaciously," says Stevens, " did the Trustees 
cling to some of the original purposes of their settlement; 
and so strangely did they engraft upon the legislature of 
Georgia the unusual qualifications, not of freehold and in- 
come, but of mulberry trees and raw silk, as constituting 
eligibility to a seat in the assembly. This was sealed, and 
became the law of the Trustees, on the 27th of March, 
I 75°" 2 I n no other part of the American colonies shall 
we find a more absurd political qualification than this im- 
posed by the philanthropic Trustees of Georgia. 

But the government of the Trustees was fast approaching 
its close. It had proved a " philanthropic, agricultural, in- 
dustrial, commercial, and governmental" failure. 3 Even be- 
fore the Trust's twenty-one years of legal duration had ex- 
pired, it felt the necessity of surrendering its authority to 
the Crown, and on June 23, 1752, the transfer to the Crown 
was completed, the last meeting of the Trustees was held, 
and their seal broken. 4 After this the Board of Trade 
recommended to the king that the colony be organized with 
a governor, an assembly, and courts of judicature, under 
regulations well adapted to the circumstances of the colony. 5 
And accordingly, on August 6, 1754, the King in Council 
appointed John Reynolds as governor of the colony. 

In the new governor's commission and instructions, the 
suffrage, for the first time in Georgia, was expressly defined. 
The electors of members of the " Commons House of 
sembly" were to be freeholders who possessed at least fifty 
acres of land in the parish or district where they voted; 

1 Stevens, I, 247. 

* Ibid. Compare the equally extreme measures taken by Frederick 
the Great to establish silk culture in Prussia. 

•Ibid., 313. 

* Stevens, I, 252-258; Jones, I, 450-460. 
5 Ibid., 381; Ibid., 460. 



The Suffrage in Georgia. 171 

j while members of the assembly were required to possess at 
least five hundred acres of land in any part of the province. 1 
The assembly was given legislative power similar to as- 
semblies in other royal colonies. Now the silk-worm and 
mulberry tree prerequisites gave place to a rational qualifica- 
tion for suffrage or office-holding, and the old information- 
giving group of deputies was displaced by a truly represen- 
tative legislative assembly. 

The first assembly met in January, 1755, and was com- 
posed of nineteen members, who were apportioned among 
three districts, into which the governor, for convenience, 
divided the colony. 2 Some excitement was caused in the 
assembly by the actions of one Edmund Gray, who had 
fraudulently gained a representative's land qualification, and 
who even tried to assemble the freeholders in Savannah to 
intimidate the assembly. He and his friends were expelled 
from the legislature. 3 

The suffrage qualification came up for consideration in 
this first assembly, for it was found that the terms of the 
governor's instructions limiting the suffrage to those own- 
ing fifty acres of land would disfranchise many of the in- 
habitants in towns. Owing to the exposed situation of the 
colony, it had been the policy of the Trustees and of Ogle- 
thorpe to settle the people in towns, where they could be 
easily protected; and in carrying out this policy the fifty 
acres of each settler were often divided between a home lot 
in the town, a few acres in the commons, and the remainder 
in farm land near the town. 4 After the alienation of lands 
was permitted, it is probable that many owners of town lots 
did not possess any other land. To remedy the inequalities 
which the uniform suffrage requirement would produce, the 
assembly was forced to appeal to the English government, 
since no law in the colony could change the governor's in- 
structions. The assembly said, in a memorial to the king, 
:hat according to the instructions 

"Jones, I, 464. 

2 Stevens, I, 389, 392 ; Jones, I, 474. 
'Stevens, I, 398"399- 

4 Ibid., 107, 137. Compare Penn's apportionment of lots in Philadel- 
)hia. 



1 7- The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

" residents in towns having buildings and improvements greater in 
value than five hundred acres, were not permitted to sit in the Assem- 
bly ; and freeholders of town lots liable to pay taxes for the support 
of government, were not permitted to vote for representatives, though 
the value of their one or two town acres greatly exceeded the fifty 
acres by which many others became qualified to vote." ' 

In England the Board of Trade considered this memorial 
during May and July, 1755, 2 and referred the matter to the 
lords justices. In November of the same year an additional 
instruction was prepared for the governor, according to 
which he was authorized to assent to a bill for ascertaining 
the qualifications of electors upon the condition that the bill 
be first submitted for approval to his Majesty, or that it 
contain a clause suspending the execution of the act until 
the king's pleasure should be known. 3 The power thus 
granted does not appear to have been exercised. 

In 1 761 an act was passed " To assertain the manner and 
form of Electing Members to represent the Inhabitants of 
this Province in the Commons House of Assembly." 4 The 
preamble states that the manner and form of choosing mem- 
bers had never yet been determined. The act does not 
change the property qualifications of voters as they had been 
in 1754. The suffrage clause reads: 

" every free white man and no other who has attained to the age of 
Twenty One years and hath been Resident in the Province Six Months 
and is legally possessed in his own Right of fifty Acres of Land in 
the said Parish District or village for which the Member or Men. 
is or are to be elected to represent in the General Assembly shall be 
deemed a person qualified for Electing a Representative or Representa- 
tives to serve as Member or Members of the Commons House of 
Assembly for the Parish District Town or village wherein he is pos- 
sessed of the above Qualification." 

1 Stevens, I, 412 ; Jones, I, 489. 

2 MS. Board of Trade Journals (in Pa. Hist. Soc), Vol. 63, PP- 184, 
185-186, 276, 280. 

3 Ibid., 320, 321, 324. 

4 Title only given in Watkins's Digest, 67 ; in full in Bishop, Elec- 
tions in American Colonies, 279-287. 



The Suffrage in Georgia. 173 

Thus in spite of the earlier protest of the townspeople, the 
old requirement was continued, and, indeed, retained with- 
out change until the Revolution. 

The general conduct of elections was carefully defined by 
the act of 1761. The returning officer was to prepare a book 
and enter therein the names of all persons presenting them- 
selves as candidates, leaving " a fair column'' under each 
candidate's name. It was the duty of the officer to repeat 
distinctly the name of the candidate for which each elector 
voted, and then to enter the elector's name in the " fair col- 
umn" under the candidate's name. Voters were forbidden 
to alter their votes after once casting them, and could not 
vote twice at " one and the same Election." Candidates 
were to be free-born subjects of Great Britain or the domin- 
ions belonging thereto, or naturalized persons, professing 
the Christian religion; they must be twenty-one years of 
age ; residents of the province twelve months before the date 
of the election writ, and possessed of five hundred acres of 
land in the province. Either electors or candidates could be 
compelled to swear that they were properly qualified. The 
polls were to be open from nine in the morning until six in 
the afternoon on not more than two days ; and fines were to 
be imposed for intimidation or bribery in elections. 

This act is the only general election act passed in the 
colony of Georgia, and its suffrage provision of fifty acres 
of freehold, taken from the governor's instructions, is the 
only legal qualification for electors which the colony pos- 
sessed. In the same way the elections for representatives 
are the only ones of which any record has been found ; pre- 
sumably all other officers were appointed by the Crown or 
the governor. 1 

*It is very much regretted that none of the original materials of 
Georgia history was accessible to the writer, except those published 
in the Collections of the Historical Society. It is believed that a much 
more detailed account of the suffrage and representation than that 
given above could be obtained from the known extant material. Un- 
fortunately, I have not had the opportunity to inspect these manu- 
scripts. 



CHAPTER VII. 

The Suffrage in New York. 

I. Under the Dutch, 1 613-1664. 

I. The Provincial Suffrage. 

About fifteen years of colonial life in New Netherland 
passed without any apparent popular participation in the 
government. Under the control of the New Nether 
Company, the Dutch colony was merely a trading settle- 
ment, and during the early years of the West India C 
pany no provision was made for giving the colonists a share 
in the government. It was not until the patroon conces- 
of 1629 were issued that we find evidence of a change 
policy. By these concessions 1 broad feudal political and 
economic rights were given to persons bringing out a certain 
number of settlers. But in addition to the mediaeval tei 
respecting patroons, the concessions also offered inducem* 
to individual settlers, and among other privileges gave 
colonies lying on each river or island the right to appoint 
deputies every two years to give information annually 
the Commander and his Council. 2 

These provisions might have furnished the basis for 2 
regular representative system had they been adhered to 
the directors in New Amsterdam; but. in fact, it was thir- 
teen years after the granting of the concessions before a 
partially representative body was called, and over twenty 
years until, in 1658, a truly representative assembly 
summoned. 

Three quasi-representative boards were erected by the 
directors, — " The Twelve Men'' of 1642. " The Eight Men" 
of 1643-44, and "The Nine Men" of 1647-1650. The 
Twelve Men were selected to advise Director Kieft concern- 

1 O'Callaghan, History of New Netherland, I, 1 12-120. 
1 Articles XXI and XXVIII. 

174 



The Suffrage in New York. 175 

ing the impending war with the Indians, and, naturally, in 
this first and hasty election, we see no formal ideas of the 
suffrage. The twelve committeemen were chosen by a meet- 
ing " of all the masters and heads of families" of New Am- 
sterdam and vicinity, which had been called by the director. 1 
The board tried to induce the director to recognize them as 
a permanent part of the government, but he refused their 
demands, saying they had been chosen only to consult con- 
cerning the Indian affairs; but the director did promise that 
he would consult with persons among the commonalty re- 
garding taxation and other public matters. 2 In this way the 
governor offered to recognize informally the wishes of the 
community, although he refused to provide a permanent 
representative system. 

The recurrence of Indian troubles 3 again forced Kieft to 
call a general meeting of the settlers, in which, according to 
a document signed by those present, only forty-eight persons 
took part. 4 The commonalty, strangely, refused to select a 
committee to represent them, but asked the director to nomi- 
nate persons from their number, who might be accepted or 
rejected by the meeting; and the director and council nomi- 
nating eight men, the choice was accepted in a paper signed 
by twenty-eight persons. 5 

This meeting and the papers signed by those present show 
how slim was the attendance at such gatherings, and how 
narrow the occasional suffrage granted to the " masters and 
heads of families." O'Callaghan estimates the population in 
and around New Amsterdam at this time as about twenty- 
five hundred souls, five hundred of whom were men. 6 If 
these figures be correct, the meeting can scarcely be called a 
democratic one; and we have no proof that it was a repre- 
sentative body, although persons might have been present 
from the neighboring settlements. Apparently this meeting, 
like a later one, was composed only of " some of the most in- 

1 O'Callaghan, New Netherlands I, 241 ; Brodhead, New York, I, 317. 

S N. Y. Col. Doc, I, 202-203. 

3 Ibid., 181-185. 

* Ibid., 191. 

5 Ibid., 192; O'Callaghan, I, 283. 

e O'Callaghan, I, 385-386. 



176 The Suit rage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

fluential burghers and inhabitants" of New Amsterdam and 
its vicinity. 1 It is thus rather difficult to interpret the real 
meaning of the word " commonalty," and the meagreness 
of the records leaves us in doubt whether participation in 
the meeting was limited by definite action of the director or 
by the reluctance of the people to attend. A system of pr 
voting would have solved the difficulty of inadequate means 
of transportation, but there is no evidence pointing to the 
existence of such a plan. The method which arose nat- 
urally in Massachusetts and Maryland, and developed later 
on Long Island under the English, appears totally lacking in 
New Netherlands 

The Eight Men appointed by the director with the consent 
of the commonalty placed a broad construction upon their 
powers. They expelled one of their number and elected 
another in his place; they passed local ordinances, adopted 
measures for the prosecution of the Indian war, and 
manded that taxes be laid only with their consent. 3 They 
wrote to the West India Company and the States General of 
the Netherlands and threatened to betake themselves to the 
English if their condition was not improved. 4 The follow- 
ing year, 1644, the Eight Men, angered at Kieft's action in 
imposing unpopular taxes, sent a long protest to Holland, 
in which they spare no words to describe the director's lack 
of judgment in dealing with the Indians and his arbitrary 
rule over the Dutch. 5 They say, — 

1 N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 220. Without doubt the difficulty of reach- 
ing New Amsterdam from the neighboring Long Island and mainland 
settlements would prevent a full gathering of even the heads of fami- 
lies. Compare the reluctance to accept freemenship and perform politi- 
cal duties in Massachusetts and Maryland, Mass. Col. Rec, II, 38'. 
Md. Archives, Proceedings and Acts of Assembly, 1637-64, pp. 167, 
170. 

3 Proxy voting existed in the English town of Gravesend under the 
Dutch rule (N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 329), and may have been customary 
in other English towns, but it was not applied to the whole province 
{Hempstead Town Records, I. 409). 

8 O'Callaghan, I, 285-288. 

* N. Y. Col. Doc, I, 130-140, 190. 

"Ibid., 188, 209-213. 



The Suffrage in New York. iyj 

u It is impossible ever to settle this country until a different system 
be introduced here, and a new governor sent out with more people, 
who will settle in suitable places, one near the other, in the form of 
villages or hamlets, and elect from among themselves a Bailiff or 
Schout and Schepens, who will be empowered to send their deputies 
and give their votes on public affairs with the Director and Council, 
so that the entire country may not be hereafter, at the whim of one 
man, again reduced to similar danger." 

With the composition and forwarding of their petition the 
work of the Eight Men ceased, and we hear no more of their 
organization. Kieft, however, called another meeting of the 
commonalty in August, 1645, to which he submitted the 
terms of a proposed treaty with the Indians, and assured 
them " that if any one could give good advice, he might 
declare his opinions freely." Only one person, a tailor, 
objected to the treaty. 1 

The petition of the Eight Men called forth proposals in 
Holland for greater political freedom in the colony. The 
Chamber of Accounts of the West India Company advised a 
formal representative assembly holding semi-annual meet- 
ings, and having power to advise concerning almost all public 
matters. 2 But the Chamber of Accounts was more liberal 
than the Board of XIX Directors, which was the real power 
in the West India Company. They did, indeed, compose 
new instructions to the director and council, but these gave 
no power to the deputies called by the director, except to 
inform him of the " State and condition of their Colonies." 3 

^rodhead, I, 408. 

' " As the respective Colonies are allowed by the 28th article of 
the Freedoms to delegate one or two persons to report their state 
and condition to the Director and Council, at least once a year, so 
are we of opinion that the said delegates should, moreover, assemble 
every six months, at the summons of the Director and Council, for 
mutual good understanding, and the general advancement of the public 
welfare, to aid in advising them, besides, upon all affairs relating to 
the prosperity of their Colonies, the conciliation of the Indians and 
neighbors, the maintenance of the Freedoms and privileges, the removal 
of abuses, and the support of the laws and statutes." — N. Y. Col. Doc, 
I 154. 

3 AT. Y. Col Doc, I, 154. 

12 



\y& The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

The petition may also have played a part in deciding the 
company to recall Kieft and send out a new governor. 

Stuyvesant had been in the colony but a short time when 
he, too, was compelled to call in the people to assist him in 
the wars with the Indians. He called together the people 
of Manhattan, Breuckelen, Amesfoort, and Pavonia, and 
directed them to choose eighteen persons from whom he and 
the council might select nine, " as is customary in the Father- 
land." ' After the election by the commonalty, Stuyvesant 
issued an ordinance in the nature of a charter of govern- 
ment. 2 In its preamble he says that he desired 

" nothing more than that the government of New Netherland, en- 
trusted to our care, and principally New Amsterdam, our capital and 
residence, might continue and increase in good order, justice, police, 
population, prosperity, and mutual harmony, and be provided 
strong fortifications, a church, a school, trading place, harbor, and 
ilar highly necessary public edifices, and improvements, to which end we 
are desirous of obtaining the assistance of our whole Commonalt 
nothing is better adapted to promote their own welfare and comfort, 
and as such is required in every well-regulated government." 

But as " it is difficult to cover so many heads with a single 
cap, or to reduce so many opinions to one," he had directed 
a certain number to be chosen from the community. From 
this double nomination he now selected nine to act as the 
" Interlocuters in behalf of the Commonalty." The ordi- 
nance explained the duties of the Nine Men and the method 
of holding meetings. It provided for an annual change in 
the board upon the partial retirement principle of the Father- 
land; six of the members were to lose their seats annually, 
and the old board, " without its being necessary to com 
the entire Commonalty hereafter," should present tw< 
new names and the old nine members to the director for 
choice of six new members. 

" Thus jealously," says Brodhead, " did Stuyvesant hedge 
the meagre privileges he was forced to concede to the pe 
In the first election alone was the voice of the ' wava 

1 Brodhead, I, 473; O'Callaghan, II, 36 (August, 1647). 

2 September 25, 1647; Laws and Ordinances of New Netherland. 
75-78. 



The Suffrage in New York. 179 

multitude' to be expressed ; the Nine Men were to nominate 
their successors." * 

We cannot here enter into the work of the Nine Men, nor 
look at the contest which they made for the rights of their 
board as granted by Stuyvesant in his ordinance. 2 When, 
however, they desired a delegation to Fatherland, Stuy- 
vesant proposed a new representative assembly, perhaps 
hoping that the English towns on Long Island which 
enjoyed broad privileges might support his policy against 
the Nine Men. 3 This conference, composed of deputies 
from the " militia companies and the citizens," was scarcely 
a representative body, for it contained only seven militia 
officers and three citizens in addition to the company's offi- 
cers. 4 The conference reached no definite conclusion, and 
the two sides seem anxious to increase their strength by 
inviting more deputies ; the party of the Nine Men suggested 
the calling of two deputies from each village or colony in 
the province, while Stuyvesant proposed summoning merely 
deputies from the neighboring settlements. 5 No records of 
the projected assembly have been found. 

In the following summer the Nine Men sent their famous 
remonstrance to Europe. 6 This document is invaluable to 
the student of colonial New York history, for it gives a re- 
markably full account of the country, its resources, trade, 
and political conditions. 

The reasons for the declining prosperity of the province 
are stated to be wholly political : 

"As we shall treat of the reasons and causes by which New Nether- 
land has been reduced to its present low and ruinous condition, so we 
consider it necessary first to enumerate them separately; and, in ac- 
cordance with our daily experience as far as our knowledge extends, 

1 History of New York, I, 475. 

3 N. Y. Col. Doc, I, 315. 
•Ibid. 

4 March 4, 1649; N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV. 109-111; O'Callaghan, II, 90. 
S N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 112. 

6 Ibid., I, 259-318, the three delegates bearing letters from the Nine 
Men, a petition on behalf of the commonalty and a voluminous re- 
nonstrance, left New Amsterdam on August 15, 1649. 



i8o The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

we here assert in one word, and none better offers, that the can 
bad government with its attendants and consequences. With our 
light we cannot perceive any other than this to be the sole and 
foundation-stone of the decay and ruin in New Netherland. 
government from which so much abuse proceeds is two-fold; to 
in Fatherland by the Company, and in this country." ' 

The contest between the Nine Men and the director was for 
the time transferred to the halls of the States General, and 
that body considered a provisional order which would \ 
established village governments, given a city governing 
New Amsterdam, made two members of the director's coun- 
cil elective, and provided for the continuance of the Nine 
Men for three years. 2 

But these proposals were met by the West India Company 
with a seemingly liberal set of concessions, 3 which actually 
made no mention of political privileges while they incre; 
the economic inducements to settlers. 4 In the colony, 

1 N. Y. Col. Doc, I, 295. 

2 Ibid., 387-391- 

" The Council of New Netherland shall consist of a President 
or Director ; a Vice Director and of three Councillors, one of 
whom shall be appointed on the part of their High Mightinesses 
and the West India Company, and the other two selected from 
the inhabitants of that country. 

" For which purpose the Director and Council shall be bound 
to call a meeting of the Patroons of Colonies, or their agents, 
and of the deputies of the Commonalty, to be held within the 
city of New Amsterdam for the purpose of nominating four 
qualified persons from whom two shall be selected who shall be 
thereunto qualified by their High Mightinesses and those of the 
West India Company. These two elected Councillors shall 
serve four consecutive years, but on the expiration of the afore- 
said four years, one of the two may by lot continue two years 
more and the other retire in order to present two others in 
future, biennially, by a new nomination, in manner as afore- 
said." 

n Dated May 24, 1650; N. Y. Col. Doc, I, 401-405. 
4 There can be no doubt that the West India Company did offer 
: able terms to settlers. In 1650 it was said that the company had 
frequently transported the farmer and his familv to New Netherland 



The Suffrage in New York. 181 

Stuyvesant refused to commission new members of the board 
of Nine Men when a nomination was made to him in 
December, 1650, 1 thus ignoring the order of the States 
General of April 12, 1650, which directed the continuance of 
the Nine Men until further orders from the States General. 2 
The authority of the last of the three boards thus came to 
an end. The three bodies, the Twelve Men, the Eight Men, 
and the Nine Men, show a similarity in origin and in the 
reasons for their failure. Each was selected from the com- 
munity of New Netherland, either by direct voice of the 
people or by the people ratifying the earlier choice of the 
director. The principle which underlay their origin was not 
a representation of localities, but of the whole community. 
On the other hand, the work of all three ceased when they 
came into conflict with the arbitrary power of the directors ; 
no interference could be brooked with the authority of the 
petty sovereigns of New Netherland or the privileges of the 
honorable company which they represented. In the words 
of Director Kieft regarding the Twelve Men, which un- 
doubtedly expressed his own and Stuyvesant' s later opinion 
of the other boards as soon as their immediate advantage 
to the director ceased, the boards tended " to a dangerous 
consequence and to the great injury both of the country and 
of our authority." 3 



and given him there a farm and bouwerie, four horses, four cows, and 
sheep and pigs in proportion ; the farmer to have the use of the cattle 
and their increase for six years ; returning to the company the number 
he had received. The farmer bound himself to pay the company one 
hundred guilders and eighty pounds of butter yearly. (N. Y. Col. Doc, 
I, 37i.) 

x In December, 1648, Stuyvesant renewed the board, putting in two 
new members; and apparently a similar renewal must have taken 
place in 1649, although I have found no record of the fact. In 1650 
:welve nominations were made to Stuyvesant, but he refused to select 
lew members, claiming the old board had exceeded its powers (N. Y. 
Col. Doc, I, 439, 450, 452, 455; O'Callaghan, II, 89; Brodhead, I, 
»5). 

2 N. Y. Col. Doc, I, 399. 

3 Ibid., 203. Stuyvesant for a short time had the sympathy and sup- 
)ort of the English on Long Island. In 1651, Gravesend and Hempstead 



182 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

After the overthrow of the Nine Men, no such permanent 
boards were again established, but occasional meetings, par- 
taking of the nature of pure representative bodies, were held, 
composed of deputies from the several towns and settlements. 
The first record found of such a meeting is that of one called 
by the director and council to meet on September n, 1653. 
The burgomasters and schepens of New Amsterdam, on 
September 9, elected two persons to act as delegates to a 
" general assembly of the country," 1 but no other record of 
the meeting is known to the writer. 

Later on in the same year two assemblies were held. The 
first one met in pursuance of a call of Stuyvesant to the 
" nearest subordinate colonies" to send deputies to meet 
members of the council and discuss means for stopping 
the depredations of certain English thieves on Long Island. 2 



wrote to Holland expressing their satisfaction with the government 
the directors. These letters have a peculiar interest in view of th 
independent attitude shortly afterward taken by the Long Island town* 

". . . We clearly acknowledge that the frequent changeing 
a government or the power of electing a Governor among our- 
selves, which some among us, as we understand, aim at, would 
be our ruin and destruction by reason of our factious and vari- 
ous opinions, inasmuch as many among us be unwilling to sub- 
ject themselves to any sort of government, mild or strong, it 
must, on that account, be compulsory or by force until the 
Governor's authority be well confirmed ; for such persons will 
not only despise, scorn, or disobey authority, and by their evil 
example drag other persons along, whereby the laws would be 
powerless, but every one would desire to do what would please 
and gratify himself. In fine the strongest would swallow up 
the weakest, and by means of elections or choosing, we would 
be involved in like inconveniences. Moreover, we are not sup- 
plied and provided with persons qualified and fit for such sta- 
tions. Therefore, and seeing that we have nothing to bring 
forward against our present Governor, but on the contrary, 
truly, and in deed approving his public deportment in his ad- 
ministration, we request that he be still continued over us, and 
that no change be made." 

1 Records of New Amsterdam, I, 117. 

*N. Y. Col. Doc., XIV, 219. 



The Suffrage in New York. 183 

In addition to the councillors and New Amsterdam deputies, 
only three towns, all English, 1 were represented. The atti- 
tude of the English was now far different from their humil- 
ity of 1 65 1 ; they demanded protection from the West India 
Company, and threatened if it were not granted to stop 
paying taxes ; and they urged the New Amsterdam authori- 
ties to join them in an alliance for mutual protection. 2 The 
latter, however, suggested a full representation of all the 
neighboring towns and the sending of a remonstrance to 
officers of the company in Holland. The plan was adopted 
and tacitly accepted by Stuyvesant, 3 although the city magis- 
trates and not the director invited the towns to send their 
deputies to the second meeting. 4 

Deputies came to the meeting of December 10, 1653, from 
four English towns, three Dutch towns, and from New 
Amsterdam, but the English delegates controlled the meet- 
ing. 5 The principal work of the assembly was the drafting 
and presentation to the director of a remonstrance which 
was " written in English, by the Deputies from the English 
villages." 6 The petition 7 recognized the divine and natural 
origin of " paternal government," but, while acknowledging 
the authority of the States General and the West India 
Company, the petitioners claimed the privileges in New 
Netherland which subjects of the Fatherland enjoyed. They 
were apprehensive of the establishment of an arbitrary gov- 
ernment among them : 

"Tis contrary to the first intentions and genuine principles of every 
well regulated government, that one or more men should arrogate to 
themselves the exclusive power to dispose, at will, of the life and prop- 
erty of any individual, and this, by virtue or under pretense of a law 
or order he, or they, might enact, without the consent, knowledge or 
election of the whole Body, or its agents or representatives. Hence 

a Gravesend, Vlissingen (Flushing), Newtown. 
*N. Y. Col. Doc., XIV, 223-224; O'Callaghan, II, 238. 
*N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 231, 239. 

4 Rec. of New Amsterdam, I, 140; N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 227-229. 
|*r. Y. Col. Doe., I, 553; XIV, 233-236. 

' Ibid., I, 553. George Baxter of Gravesend was the author of the 
remonstrance ; it was translated into Dutch before given to Stuyvesant. 
T Ibid., 550-552. 



iS4 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

the enactment, except as aforesaid, of new Laws or orders affecting 
the Commonalty, or the Inhabitants, their lives or property, is contrary 
and opposed to the granted Freedoms of the Dutch Government, and 
odious to every freeborn man, and principally so to those whom God 
has placed in a free state on newly settled lands, which might require 
new laws and orders, not transcending, but resembling as near a* 
possible, tho>e of Xethcrland. We humbly submit that 'tis one of our 
privileges that our consent or that of our representatives is neces 
required in the enactment of such laws and orders." 

These general statements were followed by a list of specific 
grievances. 1 

Stuyvesant's first reply to the petition was an evasive 
but on December 12 he declared the assembly an ill 
gathering. 3 The following day the meeting, now calling 
itself a " convention," replied that the director had givci 
consent to their gathering; and besides, the 

" Convention had no other aim, than the service and protection of the 
country, the maintenance and preservation of the freedoms, privileges 
and property of its inhabitants, but not an unlawful usurpation of the 
authority of the said Hon bI e Director-General and Council ; on the 
contrary, their intention was to prevent illegal proceedings, while the 
laws of Nature give to all men the right to gather for the welfare and 
protection of their freedom and property.'' * 

Stuyvesant gave a characteristic rejoinder to the last expres- 
sions of the convention. The " pretended Convention" 
" actually declared to be illegal," and its members were called 

1 Among which were the absence of any protection by the Company, 
the enforcement of council orders which had never been published, the 
refusal to grant deeds and patents which had been promised, and the 
evidence of favoritism in the granting of lands. 

2 He demanded a better translation of the petition and copies for each 
member of the council ; the assembly refused both demands. 

3 He claimed they had exceeded their authority, and that the Dutch 
towns had no right to send representatives (TV. Y. Col. Doc., XT 
Since he had expressed his intention of giving them that right before 
the meeting (Ibid., 223-4), his subsequent attitude must have come 
from chagrin that the Dutch deputies did not give him their support 
against the English. 

4 Ibid., 237. 



The Suffrage in New York. 185 

■ upon to disperse, and hold no more meetings, under pain " of 
our extreme displeasure and arbitrary correction. " * The 
order was obeyed by the deputies, but their unredressed 
wrongs smothered for a time until they broke out into the 
flames of actual rebellion to Stuyvesant's rule. Naturally, 
the director had the last words in the controversy. In two 
papers 2 respecting the convention, he answered the com- 
plaints of the deputies. Replying to their demand for all 
the rights of subjects in Fatherland, he infers, in that case, 
they would have the right to send deputies to the States 
General, a line of reasoning which seems to him a reductio 
ad absurdam. Concerning their demand for more privi- 
leges, he said, — 

"It ought to be remembered, that the Englishmen, who are the au- 
thors of and leaders in these innovations, enjoy more privileges, than 
the Exemptions of New Netherland grant to any Hollander." 

And he hinted that their affinity for their own nation had 
led them to threaten to tax themselves and secure their own 
protection. Replying to the argument from the law of 
J Nature, proof and explanation were demanded : 

"The Director-General and Council think, that the authorities are 
appointed for these purposes, but not all men generally, for that would 
create confusion. The Lords-Directors resolved for this reason with 
the knowledge and consent of their High: Might: to appoint the Di- 
rector-General and Council, giving them ample authority for the preser- 
vation and protection of the privileges, freedom and property of the 
Company and the good inhabitants and if necessary for the convoca- 
tion of an Assembly of their subjects, but this authority was not con- 
ferred on the Burgomasters and Schepens, much less to all men." 

After the dismissal of the assembly of 1653, Stuyvesant 
avoided giving the Englishmen an opportunity of again ex- 
pressing their ideas. In February, 1654, when the opinion 

l N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 238. 

a One of these is his " Deductions" upon their petition, sent to the 
Directors of the Company (N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 233-236) ; and the 
other is a statement entered upon the Council Minutes of New Nether- 
land (ibid., 239-240). 



1 86 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

of the localities was desired, Stuyvesant consulted with the 
New Amsterdam authorities and with " the friends" in the 
several villages. 1 In May of the same year, when an English 
fleet was feared, he called in the magistrates of the Dutch 
villages of Breuckelen, Midwout, and Amesfoort. 2 

When peace had been made with England, the Dutch 
tried to conciliate the English inhabitants, and even v 
so far as to offer remarkable concessions to new Eng 
settlers, who, it was hoped, would settle between the 1) 
ware and Hudson rivers, and thus complete a line of settle- 
ments between the distant parts of the province. 3 The new 
agreement permitted the English settlers in case of disagree- 
ment between themselves and Stuyvesant or his succc- 
to elect a chief or director for themselves, only requiring 
all writs to be issued in the name of the Netherlands. 4 But 
the English took a yard where the Dutch would have given 
them an ell. English settlers from Connecticut were coming 
down the Bronx, and in 1662 Connecticut claimed the entire 
Bronx and Westchester settlements, together with all the 
towns on Long Island, including those hitherto under the 
Dutch, and directed all of them to send deputies to the next 
general court. 5 A compromise was reached later, by which 
Stuyvesant yielded Westchester and eastern Long Islan 
Connecticut, while the English towns in western I. 

1 Rec. of New Amsterdam, I, 159. 

2 Ibid., 201. The English on Long Island were found to be in cor- 
respondence with the authorities in Boston, and two of them were im- 
prisoned by Stuyvesant. In March, 1655-6, the republic of England 
was publicly proclaimed in Gravesend (N. Y. Col. Doc.. II, 152; XIV 
246, 278, etc. ; Brodhead, I, ch. XVII : Flint. Early Long Island. 
278). 

s O'Callaghan, II, 443. 

4 Dated February 14, 1661. 

" The said inhabitants shall have full liberty, after they have 
planted their colonie, in case of difference with the aforesaid 
Peter Stuyvesant, or any that shall survive him as Governor, 
by appointment of the States of Netherlands, to chuse a Di- 
rector or Cheife ; only they shall issue out all writs of what 
nature soever, in the name of the States Generall of the United 
Netherlands." 

8 Conn. Col. Rec., 1636-65, 420-423 ; Brodhead, I, 703. 



The Suffrage in New York. 187 

Island, hitherto under Dutch control, were to be independent 
of both Connecticut and New Amsterdam. 1 The inhabi- 
tants of these towns, perhaps familiar with the earlier prom- 
ise made to intending Englishmen, now elected one John 
Scott as " president" and set up an independent govern- 
ment, until the decision of the king should be known. 2 

In the mean time, Stuyvesant, upon the suggestion of the 
New Amsterdam authorities, 3 had called together another 
assembly. This body, meeting on November 1, 1663, was 
more nearly representative of the Dutch population than any 
of the earlier assemblies or boards. Two delegates from 
each of eight Dutch towns, including New Amsterdam, 
were sent, and in one instance at least the election was with 
the consent of the people. 4 This assembly took no positive 
measures to support the Dutch authorities, but spent its time 
in complaining of the Company's neglect of the colony. Its 
only practical outcome seems to have been the appointment 
of a delegate to visit Fatherland and explain to the authori- 
ties the defenceless condition of the province. 5 

The continued aggressions of the English under Scott 
led Stuyvesant again to ask advice from the city officers, 
but he met with scant encouragement. They replied they 
were indifferent concerning the sovereignty of the country, 
whether it were held by Dutch or English. " We are of 
opinion," they say, " that the Burgher is not bound to dis- 
pute whether this be the King of England's soil or their 
High Mightinesses ; but if they will deprive us of our prop- 
erties, freedoms, and privileges, to resist them with our 
lives or fortunes." 6 But Scott's menacing attitude must 

1 O'Callaghan, II, 495. 

2 iV. Y. Col. Doc., XIV, 542, 544, 547-8, 551-2; O'Callaghan, II, 
498-500; Brodhead, I, 723-28; Flint, Early Long Island, 282-286; 
Thompson, Long Island (second edition), II, 320; Records of New 
Amsterdam, V, 18-24. 

3 Rec. of Nezv Amsterdam, IV, 318. 

4 O'Callaghan, II, 490, note 4. In the return from Boswyck, the 
magistrates of that town state that "the aforesaid magistrates have 
chosen and named two persons from the same [village], with the 
knowledge and consent of the majority of the inhabitants." 

a Rec. of New Amst., IV, 342. 6 Ibid., V, 20. 



1 88 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

have seemed dangerous to the property and freedom of the 
Dutch, for shortly after this we find the New Amsterdam 
authorities advising the calling of another assembly. 1 

The last representative assembly of New Netherland met 
in New Amsterdam on April 10, 1664, and was comp 
of deputies from twelve Dutch towns. 2 The old dis] 
regarding the duty of the Company to protect the col 
furnished the principal theme for discussion. Stuyves 
demanded supplies and military levies from the inhabit; 
the deputies demanded the fulfilment of the compa 
promises. And with mutual recriminations the assei] 
closed its meeting without any action for the protectio- 
the province. It was not long after this that the dreaded 
English attack came, and the fleet under Nicholls won an 
unexpectedly easy conquest. Since the Company gave itself 
" so little concern about the safety of the country and 
inhabitants as not to be willing to send a ship of war to its 
succor in such pressing necessity, nor even a letter of 
advise,'' 3 the people had carried out their threat, that they 
would not longer " dwell and sit down on an uncertaii 
but would be obliged " to seek by submission to another 
government" 4 the protection which the Honorable Com- 
pany refused. 

2. The Suffrage in Local Elections. 

A. In the Dutch Towns. 

There was apparently but little popular political activity 
in the Dutch towns of New Netherland. 5 The development 
of these towns was slow, and often it was artificially encour- 
aged by the New Amsterdam authorities. 6 The colonist' 

1 Rec. of New Amsterdam, V, 33. 

2 0'CalIaghan, II, 505-509. 

*N. Y. Col. Doc., II, 367-68. 

4 Ibid., 375- 

* This section merely summarizes the conclusions reached by t 
writer in an article in Amcr. Hist. Rev., VI, 1-18. 

' N. V. Col. Doc, I, 160-162; Laws and Ordinances of AV 
206, 234. 368. 



The Suffrage in New York. 189 

lacked the common ownership of the land, the common 
political rights, and the intense religious interest which 
helped to form the New England town. The absence of 
these centralizing forces and the liberal policy of the Dutch 
West India Company in making large individual land 
grants greatly retarded the growth of towns among the 
Dutch. Many years usually intervened between the date of 
settlement of a locality and the time of its incorporation. 

When the towns were incorporated, the town officers 
were a schout and several schepens, who were in some 
cases first selected by the local inhabitants, 1 but thereafter 
in all cases, it is believed, constituted a close corporation. 
The existing magistrates had the power to nominate a 
double number of persons from whom the director and 
council selected some to fill vacancies in the local magistracy. 
A number of these nominations have been preserved, and in 
no case is there evidence of popular election of the proposed 
magistrates. 2 

While, therefore, the evidence points to the absence of any 
regular popular elections, there were occasional meetings of 
the settlers to consider questions of local importance. We 
have records of such a meeting in Brooklvn in 1660, to which 
the magistrates " had convened all the inhabitants of the 
village of Breuckelen." 3 In 1663 the " town people" of 
Harlem were summoned in meeting to take measures to avert 
a threatened Indian attack. 4 Similar, but not frequent, in- 
stances are to be found concerning Bergen, 5 New Amster- 
dam, 6 and the Delaware settlements. 7 Stuyvesant, in writing 
to Holland in 1653, wishes to give the impression that popu- 

1 Stiles, Hist, of Brooklyn, I, 45 ; Laws and Ordinances of New 
Neth., 335; Thompson, Long Island (second ed.), II, 155. In other 
cases even the first selection was made in the charter itself, N. Y. Col 
Doc, XIII, 196-198; Laws and Ordinances of New Neth., 403, 458. 

2 Amer. Hist. Rev., VI, 9, notes. 
Z N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 479- 

4 Riker, Hist of Harlem, 2.2.2. 
S N. Y. Col. Doc, XIII, 232, 319. 

'Records of New Amst., IV, 273; N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 220. 
7 N. Y. Col. Doc, XII, 151, 154-5, 3°8; Pa- Archives, Second Series, 
VII, 511. 



190 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

lar elections were not uncommon, but his letter scar 
proves the fact : 

" It is untrue, that any Magistrates have been appointed again : 
laws of Netherlands or against the wish of the people. . . . The M 
trates of New Amsterdam, before being installed and taking the oath 
in the presence of the Director-General, were each by name and 
name and by his office proclaimed from the front of the Council 
Chamber, and the Community was called upon to express their ol 
tions. The same is usually done by the Director-General and Council 
at the installation of other, military officers. . . ." ! 

But in all these cases the popular action appears upon an 
ceptional occasion and does not enter as an integral part 
the town life. Under such circumstances the suffrage 
an accidental privilege rather than a definite right, and < 
sequently we find among the Dutch no statements of 
suffrage qualifications. Where popular elections did not 
place, there could be no definition of the suffrage. 

B. In the English Towns. 

In the English towns which developed under the 
Netherland jurisdiction, political practice was far more popu- 
lar than in the Dutch settlements. 2 Director Kieft eno 
aged English settlers, and gave favorable charters to I 
English towns before a single Dutch village had been in< 
porated. In the charters of Newtown, Hempstead, Flush 
and Gravesend there is a degree of popular government in 
attained in the Dutch towns." The towns received a def: 
tract of land, with power to build a town and fortificati 
and to practise liberty of conscience. 4 Within the tour. 

1 N. Y. Col, Doc., XIV, 235. 

2 See Amcr. Hist. Rev., VI, 10-16. 

3 Newtown chartered, March 28, 1642; for charter, see O'Callajj 
New Netherland, I, 425. Hempstead chartered November 16, 1644: 
see Thompson, Long Island (second edition), II, 4-6. Flushing char- 
tered October 10, 1645 ; see Laivs and Ordinances of New Netherland. 
48-51. Gravesend chartered December 19. 1645 ; see Documentary Hist 
of N. Y., I, 629-632. 

* Gravesend charter. 



The Suffrage in New York. 191 

patentees could erect a civil organization, hold town meet- 
ings, and elect three magistrates and a schout, who should 
be confirmed by the director. The Gravesend charter 
reads, — 

" With libertie likewise for them, the s d pattentees, theyr associates 
heyres etc to erect a bodye politique and ciuill combination amongst 
themselves, as free men of this Province & of the Towns of Grauesend 
& to make such civill ordinances as the Maior part of ye Inhabitants 
ffree of the Towne shall thinke fitting for theyr quiett & peaceable 
subsisting & to Nominate elect & choose three of ye Ablest approued 
honest men & them to present annuallie to ye Gouernor Generall of 
this Province for the tyme being, for him ye said Gouern 1 * to establish 
and confirme. . . ." 



The Hempstead charter contained almost exactly the same 
terms, while the Newtown and the Flushing charters were 
somewhat less liberal. Some years after this Stuyvesant 
granted more restricted privileges to the English settlers at 
Westchester 1 and Jamaica, 2 in which he attempted to limit 
them to the customs of the Dutch towns. 

We have considerable evidence of democratic political 
activities in these English towns. In the first place, their 
annual returns of elections to the director show that the 
officers were appointed in the town meeting by a popular vote 
and not by nomination of the magistrates. 3 In the second 
place, a number of orders of the town meetings are extant 
showing regular activity upon the part of these meetings, and 
throwing much light upon the details of town government. 4 
There can be no doubt, with this evidence before us, that the 
English townsman exercised a regular and strong control 
over this town government through the popular elections and 
:he town meetings. 

In such cases the New England customs appear to have 
governed the suffrage conditions. The four early town char- 

1 March 16, 1656 (N. Y. Col. Doc, XIII, 65-6). 

'March 2i, 1656 (Ibid., XIV, 339"34o). 

*N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 189, 296, 300, 329, 343, 345, 422, 424, etc. 

'Ibid., 128-129; 504-506; 529-530. 



192 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

ters had implied that the original founders would be joined 
by certain associates or followed by successors and heirs, and 
that the political privileges granted would extend and 
scend to these persons. Associates, upon receiving their 
and rights in the common lands, obtained at the same time a 
voice in the town meeting. 1 The admission of such asso- 
ciates usually required the consent of the town meeting, and 
in Gravesend none of the original twenty-eight owners could 
sell his land until he had settled and built a house in the 
town ; while even after he had done so he must first " pro- 
pound it to the towne in generall & in case the towne would 
not buy," then he might sell to outsiders. 2 It was expR 
stated, however, that the sale might not be made to 
" notoriouslie detected for an infamous person or a disturber 
of the common peace." Hempstead excluded " quakers and 
such like," and required newcomers to show letters of com- 
mendation and approbation from the authorities of the town 
from which they came. 3 

The elections, especially after the Quaker difficulties had 
arisen, were not always managed with decorum. A party 
of Dutchmen who had purchased lands and houses in Gra 
end claimed to have been excluded from the suffr 
although proxy votes were cast by the English for tho< 
confinement, for others who had left the town, and for con- 
spirators against the government. 4 "An honest Dutchman, 
who was a hired man," was not permitted to vote in the plact 
of his master who was absent. It is interesting to notict 
that in this town of Gravesend occurs the only instance fount 
in all the colonies of woman suffrage. In the summe; 
^55, when the town had neglected to make its usual nomi 
nation of officers to the director, Stuyvesant wrote to L 
Moody, the oldest patentee of the town, and the other inhab 
itants, directing them to perform their duty as required b) 
their patent; and a month later the names of the seld 
nominees were sent to the director in a document signed b} 

J In Hempstead, N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV. 529. 

2 N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 128^9. 

3 Ibid., 529. 

1 J hid.: sec also Laws and Ordinances of New Neth., 338- 



The Suffrage in New York. 193 

Deborah Moody and John Tillton " as clerk in Behalf of the 
Rest" 2 

Stuyvesant, who followed Kieft, was opposed to the privi- 
leges which the latter had granted the English. In 1653 he 
wrote, — 

"The English (on Long Island) do not only enjoy the right of 
nominating their own Magistrates, but some of them also usurp the 
election and appointment of such Magistrates, as they please, without 
regard to their religion. Some, especially the people of Gravesend, 
elect libertines and Anabaptists, which is decidedly against the laws 
of the Netherlands. 

"... But if it be made a rule, that the selection and nomination 
shall be left to the people generally, whom it most concerns, then 
every one would want for Magistrate a man of his own stamp, for 
instance a thief would choose for Magistrate a thief and dishonest 
man, a drunkard a smuggler, etc. . . ." 2 

And in 1656, when Englishmen asked for town charters for 
settlements at Westchester and Jamaica, the director replied 
that, regarding both lands and election of magistrates, they 
might be placed upon " the footing and order in use in the 
villages of Middleburg, Breuckelen, Midwout, and Ames- 
foort," all of which had the limited privileges of the Dutch 
towns. 3 The same conservatism is shown in Stuyvesant's 
negotiations with some Milford inhabitants who proposed 
leaving their homes in Connecticut and making a settlement 
in what is now New Jersey. 4 
But while the director was opposed to popular government, 

X N. Y. Col. Doc., XIV, 527-529. See Flint, Early Long Island, 
104-115, Brodhead, I, 411-412, for Lady Moody's settlement at Graves- 
end. Compare the demand made by Mrs. Margaret Brent for suffrage 
in Maryland. See Neill, Virginia Carolorum, 274-275, for sketch of 
life of Lady Moody. 

1 Ibid., 235. 

l Ibid., 339-340. It must be noted that the towns of Jamaica and 
Westchester interpreted their charters very broadly, and held town 
meetings and popular elections in the same manner as the other English 
towns were accustomed to do (N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 504-506, 509; 
Bolton's Hist, of Westchester, Revised edition, II, 270-281). 

*Ibid., XIII, 209-222. 

13 



194 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

he could not stamp it out in the English towns. We have 
abundant evidence of communal activity among the English 
settlers ; their town meetings and popular elections were held 
almost continuously under the Dutch rule ; 1 and at last their 
self-consciousness found expression in the union of six towns 
and the election of President John Scott. 

C In New Amsterdam. 

Nearly forty years after the first settlement of New Neth- 
erland, a separate government was erected for the citj 
New Amsterdam. The first demand for a distinct city gov- 
ernment was sent to Holland by the Nine Men in 1649, when 
their representatives were directed to ask for a " suitable 
municipal government." 2 It was urged that this, together 
with other reforms, would encourage the settlement of the 
colony and promote its prosperity. A committee of the States 
General shortly afterwards advised the establishment of a 
" Burgher Government" in New Amsterdam, consisting of 
a sheriff, two burgomasters, and five schepens. 3 The report 
was not adopted, but its consideration stirred up the Y 
India Company, and on April 4, 1652, Stuyvesant was 
directed to erect a government similar to that of Amsterdam. 
The officers were to be those named in the provisional order 
of the States General, selected from the " honest and respect- 
able" persons of the settlement. The directors querulously 
expressed the hope that some such might be found among the 
inhabitants. 4 

It was ten months after the dating of this instruction 
before Stuyvesant inaugurated the city government. He 
allowed no popular election of magistrates, although a 
the choice of the officers they " were each by name and sur- 
name and by his office proclaimed," and " the community 
called upon to express their objections." 5 Stuyvesant d 

1 See Stuyvesant' s rule forbidding town meetings in Flushing, L 
and Ordinances of New Neth., 338. 

* N. Y. Col. Doc., I, 260. 

•Doc. Hist, of N. Y., I, 598; N. Y. Col. Doc, I, 387-391- 

4 Ibid., 500-600. 

*N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 235; O'Callaghan, II, 212-216; Brodhead, 
I, 548-540. 



The Suffrage in New York. 195 

not refer to any objections, and it is unlikely, under the cir- 
cumstances, that any were made. 

Another three years passed before the director would agree 
to a method for renewing the magistrates, although the bur- 
gomasters and schepens had twice petitioned for a change. 1 
When this was granted in 1656, it was so hedged about that 
it contained no provision for popular elections. 2 A double 
nomination was to be made annually by the magistrates, but 
the existing magistrates were always to be considered in 
nomination; the nominees must be well-qualified persons, 
favorable to the director and council ; and a member of the 
council must be present at the meeting of the magistrates 
when they selected their nominees. Under this arrangement 
the local officials were annually elected until the coming of 
the English. 3 

The organization of the city government was soon made 
yet more aristocratic. Stuyvesant was not content with for- 
bidding popular elections and compelling double nominations 
by the magistrates, nor even was the presence of the coun- 
cillor at the selection sufficient for him. By ordinances of 
January 30 and February 2, 1657, 4 Stuyvesant limited nar- 
rowly the number of persons who could hold the municipal 
offices. The ordinances established two classes of citizens, 
one holding the greater burgherecht, and the other the 
smaller burgherecht. The first class was composed of those 
who had held colonial, municipal, military, or ecclesiastical 
offices, or the male descendants of such, or who had paid fifty 
guilders. The second class was made up of those born in 
the city, or those who had kept fire and light for a year and 
1 half, or who kept shop and paid twenty guilders. The 

'In 1654 and 1656; N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 244; O'Callaghan, II, 311. 

1 Records of New Amsterdam, II, 16, 24-29, 282^286; O'Callaghan, 
tt, 370. 

* It is to be noted, however, that New Amsterdam was not given a 
separate schout or sheriff until 1660. (Doc. Hist, of N. Y., I, 600.) 

*Laws and Ordinances of New Neth., 299-301. See J. F. Jameson, 
Wag. Amer. Hist., VIII, 321, for a discussion of local government in 
Holland and the Netherlands. Also O'Callaghan, I, 391, II, 338-341 J 
Brodhead, I, 452 ff. For the granting of the burgherecht, see N. Y. 
list Soc. Coll., 1885, 1-16. 



196 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

tenure of municipal offices was limited to those possessing 
the greater burgherecht, who thus constituted a close heredi- 
tary office-holding class. 

In conclusion, it may be said that regular popular suffrage 
was not practised among the Dutch of New Netherland. 
Neither in the local town governments, nor in the municipal 
government of New Amsterdam, nor in the colonial repre- 
sentative system, is there evidence of such suffrage. Occa- 
sional meetings of the " community" were held in Nd 
Amsterdam or in the villages, and in some cases a selection 
of magistrates by the officials was publicly announced to the 
inhabitants. But such cases cannot furnish a basis for a 
general system of elections, nor give rise to a definite tin 
of the suffrage. Again, the elective system of New Nether- 
land was clogged by a process of double and triple nomina- 
tions, by the arbitrary power of the director, and by the 
aristocratic classes in the city of New Amsterdam. The 
democratic practices of the English towns are in marked 
contrast to the ideas of Stuyvesant, but these towns are not 
an integral part of New Netherland. They are off-shoots 
from the New England town life, and they bear all the 
characteristics of the parent stem. The true Dutch towns are 
miniature reproductions of the institutions of the Nether- 
lands, with their indirect and cumbrous elective machinery 
exercised by a commercial aristocracy. 

II. The Early English Period, 1 664-1 691. 

This is the period of struggle for the right of representa- 
tion, during which no continuous representative system 
isted, although one assembly was held at the opening of the 
period and several near its close. We will but glance at the 
suffrage in connection with these assemblies, without taking 
up the details of the interesting contest between the colon 
and James, Duke of York. 

The Duke's patent had given him absolute power to govern 
all English subjects within his territory by such laws as he 
or his assigns should make. No mention was here made of 
the popular participation in the framing of laws which many 
earlier proprietors had been compelled to acknowledge. The 



The Suffrage in New York. 197 

Duke was unrestrained in his power except by the feeble 
provision that his laws should be " as neare as conveniently 
may be" agreeable to the statutes of England. His control 
over commerce and his legal ownership of the land made the 
property and trade of the existing settlers insecure; while 
under the charter he need grant them no political privileges. 
We look in vain in this remarkable charter for any indication 
of popular government. 

But the Duke must conciliate, at least in a degree, the 
inhabitants of his new territory, or its possession would be 
profitless to him. The terms of capitulation granted by 
Colonel Nicholls, the Duke's representative, to the Dutch 
inhabitants constituted a voluntary limitation of the pro- 
prietor's power. By these articles, of which there were three 
sets, 1 the Dutch were admitted as English denizens upon 
recognizing the king's authority. They were guaranteed in 
their lands and other property, and might, if they wished, 
leave the country within a limited time and take their prop- 
erty with them. To those remaining, the Dutch rules of 
inheritance were promised, and they were permitted freedom 
of conscience and worship. In all cases no sudden change 
in political organization was contemplated, and the existing 
officers were directed to continue the performance of their 
duties for a time at least. 

On Long Island, where Nicholls wished to keep the good 
will of the English settlers, his promises were still broader. 
He is said to have written to certain prominent men prom- 
ising that the English inhabitants of the island should have 
privileges equal to, if not greater than, those enjoyed by the 
other New England colonies. 2 In February, 1665, Nicholls 
proceeded to carry out his plans for a government of Long 
Island, although he may have previously erected Long 
Island, Staten Island, and the Bronx settlements into a 
:ounty called Yorkshire. He now wrote to the towns re- 

1 The three sets were drawn respectively for New Amsterdam and its 
•urrounding territories, for the upper Hudson settlements, and for the 
Delaware regions. See N. Y. Col Doc, II, 250-253; XIV, 559; HI, 
'1-73- 

3 Southold Town Records, I, 357; Rept. of N. Y. State Historian, 
897, 240-242; N. Y. Col. Doc., XIV, 555-556. 



198 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

minding them of the many grievous inconveniences under 
which they had groaned, and explaining how the king at his 
own charge had shown his " signall grace and honor" to 
his subjects by conquering the Dutch, and by giving control 
of the land to the Duke of York. Nicholls then states his 
determination to settle " good and knowne Laws" for the 
country, with the best advice and information of a general 
meeting. 1 

This general meeting, called the Hempstead assembly, is 
the first representative body held under the English in I 
York. The representatives were to be chosen by the several 
towns, and Nicholls directed that the deputies be " chosen 
by the major part of the freemen only, which is to be under- 
stood, of all Persons rated according to their Estates, 
whether English or Dutch;" and he recommended that the 
people select " the most sober, able, and discreet persons 
without partiality or faction, the fruit and benefitt whereof 
will return to themselves in a full and perfect settlement and 
composure of all controversyes, and the propagacon of true 
Religion amongst us." Under this provision, it is believed 
that none but freeholders voted, although the phrase " rated 
according to their Estates" is not easily translatable at 
late day ; it surely excluded those who paid only poll-ta 

Thirty-four deputies attended the meeting at Hempstead, 
and on March 1, 1665, the assembly accepted a code of 1 
which Nicholls had drafted, and which came later to be 
called the " Duke's Laws." This code made no provision 
for a general provincial organization except of the judicial 
circuits and the military companies; it omitted all reference 
to a general representative assembly, which was so distinct 
a feature of the New England colonies, and was one of the 
privileges which the Long Islanders had expected to rece: 
In spite of strong popular protests and numerous petiti 
almost twenty years passed before the Duke agreed to an 
assembly. 

At last, by the instructions given to Governor Dong;; 

l N. Y. Col Doc, XIV, 564. 

* Southold Town Records, I, 358-359; Easthampton Town Records 
I, 241 ; Hempstead Records, I, 260; N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 631-2; Re- 
port of State Historian for 1897, 240-242. 



The Suffrage in New York. 199 

January 2J, 1682-3, formal provision was made for an 
assembly, 1 

" . . there shall be a General Assembly of all the Freeholders, by the 
persons who they shall choose to represent them in order to consult- 
ing with yourself and the said Council what laws are fitt and necessary 
to be made and established for the good weale and government of the 
said Colony and its Dependencyes, and of all the inhabitants 
thereof . . ." 

The new governor arrived in the province in August, 1683, 
and shortly afterwards, on September 13, warrants were 
issued to the sheriffs of the province for the election of depu- 
ties to an assembly. These writs directed that the freehold- 
ers in the several towns should take part in the election, 2 and 
a few days later the council entered upon its minutes the 
order, " none but freeholders to vote at the election." 3 The 
writs further established a curious system of indirect voting 
for certain parts of the province. Each of the three ridings 
of Yorkshire was to send two delegates, New York City was 
to elect four, Esopus and Albany each two, and Staten 
Island, Schenectady, Pemaquid (Maine), and the islands 
(Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket, Gardiners, etc.) were each 
to send one. On Long Island, on the Esopus, and on the 
islands the various towns or settlements were to elect a cer- 
tain number of committeemen, who should meet in the prin- 
cipal town and there elect the proper number of deputies 
from the riding or the district. 4 Thus this assembly differed 
from that of 1665 in the unit of representation, which in the 

l N. Y. Col. Doc, III, 331; N. Y. Col. Laws, I, 108-110. 
J Ibid., XIV, 770-771; Journals of Legislative Council of N. Y., I, 
Introduction, xi. 

* Calendar of Council Minutes, 33. 

* Evidence of this method of voting exists in the records of East 
Hampton and Huntington. 

"At a Legall Towne meting there, [four persons] were 
chosen to meete at Southold uppon Wednesday next to Joyne 
with the Committee of ye other Townes in Chusing Two Rep- 
resentatives for this Rideing to Meete at York according to 
order." East Hampton Records, II, 134-5. See also Hunting- 
ton Records, I, 372. 



200 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

earlier one had been the town, but in the later body was a 
much wider district or territory, to which as yet no specific 
name was given. 1 

The assembly in its first act, which it called a " charter," 
provided for a general organization of government, and 
stated a number of specific rights of the citizen. 2 Among 
the many other subjects treated in this remarkable act occurs 
the first general statement of the suffrage qualification : 

" Every ffreeholder within this province and ffreeman in any Corpora- 
con Shall have his free Choise and Vote in the Electing of the Repre- 
sentatives without any manner of constraint or Imposicon. (A)nd that 
in all Eleccons the Majority of Voices shall carry itt and by freeholders 
is understood every one who is Soe understood according to the Lawes 
of England." 

The English practice at this time was that established by 
the acts of 1430 and 1432 fixing the qualifications of the 
suffrage as forty shillings income from freehold; and this 
remained the legal qualification in New York during the 
short existence of the representative system under Governor 
Dongan. It is to be noted, however, that the provincial 
franchise included also freemen in corporations. In 1683 
this would have included New York City alone, where the 
Dutch burgherecht had been translated into the English free- 
manship, and continued under much the same privileges and 
restrictions. 3 

Dongan's second assembly was elected in 1685 m v i rtue 
of writs directed to the sheriffs of the counties, commanding 
the freeholders of each county to elect representatives, 4 pre- 
sumably in accordance with the terms of the act just quoted. 

In one county at least, the indirect system of voting estab- 
lished in 1683 was used again in 1685. An entry in the 
Southampton records is as follows : " At a towne meeting 
held in Southampton with the rest of the county by the 

1 One of the acts of this first assembly was to divide the colony into 
twelve counties; N. Y. Col. Laws, I, 121; N. Y. Col. Doc, XIII, 

* N. Y. Col. Laws, I, 111-116; the charter was subsequently vetoed by 
James, after he had become King; N. Y. Col. Doc, III, 357. 

*N. Y. Col. Doc, III, 337. See post. 

* Journal of Legis. Council, Introduction, xiv. 



The Suffrage in New York. 201 

major voote of the pxoes of ye county major Howell was 
chosen to be one of ye assemblymen for the County of Suf- 
folk, And Mr. Joshua Hubert was the other." 1 This elec- 
tion was the last held under the government of James II. 
The king soon discontinued the representative system, and 
gave legislative power to the governor and his council. 2 

Under the usurper Jacob Leisler, who seized control of the 
colonial government after the news of the English Revolu- 
tion of 1688 reached New York, 3 there were occasional 
popular elections, and a partially representative system was 
established. Leisler, without doubt, felt the necessity of 
strengthening his questionable authority by gaining the good 
will of the people. This he did by procuring the popular 
election of members of a council of safety ; 4 but many of 
the inhabitants were opposed to his authority and took no 
part in the election. It is said that his followers were " some 
of the meanest sort of the Inhabitants," 5 and according to 
one account only one-third of the people participated in the 
elections. 6 In New York City Leisler ordered that certain 
officers, by charter appointive by the king's governor, should 
be elected by the Protestant freeholders, 7 and sent writs 
directing the popular election of justices and militia officers 
in the counties, all of whom had previously been appointed 
by the governor. 8 In February, 1689-90, Leisler took 

1 Southampton Town Records, II, 286. 

' See commission and instructions of Governor Dongan, N. Y. Col. 
Doc, III, 369-375, 382-385. 

3 Doc. Hist, of N. Y., II, 426; N. Y. Col. Doc, III, 598. 

*This committee was partially representative of the province, two 
persons coming from each of the town or settlements of New York 
City, Brooklyn, Flatbush, Flushing, Newtown, Staten Island, New Jer- 
sey, Esopus, and Westchester. But Albany, Ulster, and Suffolk Coun- 
ies, and almost all of New Jersey were unrepresented, and many towns 
n the several counties were individually opposed to the revolution. 
See Doc Hist, of N. Y., II, 56, 427 ; N. Y. Col. Doc, III, 585, 597, 609, 
•70, 737- 

8 Ibid., 427. 

[N. Y. Col. Doc, III, 670. 

' Ibid., 675 ; Doc. Hist., II, 35. The election was carried through by a 
ninority of the inhabitants. 

'Ibid., 655, 674-5. 



202 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

another step in organizing the government by issuing writs 
for the election of " proper and fit" persons to act as repre- 
sentatives of the counties. 1 All the counties except one were 
represented in this assembly, 2 but " Suffolk County would 
not meddle with it." 3 The elections do not appear to have 
been fully participated in by the people. In New York 
City Leisler personally directed the elections, at which only a 
few persons, " all off his side," voted. " From the other 
Counties came Representatives onely chosen by a few people 
off their side and very weak men." 4 

Leisler failed in gaining the support of the influential in- 
habitants. His friends did not belong to the former govern- 
ing class, but he must have gained adherents among the 
poorer classes, since his popular elections would admit them 
to a greater share in the provincial government. But a 
revolutionist is often forced to ignore the forms of law; and 
while Leisler attempted to maintain the elective system, 
his evident interferences in the system made the suffrage 
little more than a farce. The merchants of New York, in a 
petition to the king and queen, could find no better name 
for his followers " than a Rable, those who formerly were 
scarce thought fit to bear the meanest offices." e A gathering 
of freeholders on Long Island called Leisler a " Tyrant," 
who, they said, acted upon Catiline's maxim that " The Ills 
that I have done can not be safe but by attempting greater." l 
Thus, in spite of his democratic utterances, Leisler's 
were not accepted by the people of the province, nor approved 
by the English authorities, who, in November, 1689, com- 
missioned a new governor for the colony. 

If the Duke's laws made no provision for a general elective 
system, they did not lack rules for the local suffrage. The 
laws were drawn from New England sources, and vet 
remarkable that Nicholls cut out the whole subject of free- 
manship, both of the colony and the town. This principle. 

1 Doc. Hist., II, 73. 

* Journal of Legislative Council of N. Y., Introduction, xxiv. 

'N. Y. Col. Doc. ,111, 717. 

4 Ibid. 

5 Ibid., 748-9. 
•Ibid., 754-6. 



The Suffrage in New York. 203 

copied from English corporation practice, received an ex- 
tended connotation in America, and lay at the basis of local 
and colonial suffrage in New England during Nicholls's 
time. It must be remembered that Nicholls and his fellow- 
commissioners were directed by their instructions to inquire 
into this exclusive freemanship to which the king objected. 1 
His practical knowledge of the workings of the freeman- 
ship principle in New England must have determined Nich- 
olls to omit it from his code. Although the word freeman 
occurred scores of times in the New Haven and Massachu- 
setts codes, from which Nicholls drew his legislation, yet it 
is sedulously erased from the Duke's laws, and even the 
allied subjects of residence and admission of inhabitants are 
not mentioned. 2 The New England codes forbade a man 
settling in a town without the consent of the local officers 
or the town meeting; but this, too, savored of the freeman 
idea and was rejected by Nicholls. In addition to fostering 
political and ecclesiastical intolerance, the New England 
freemanship, whether of town or province, was opposed to 
the powers granted by charter to the Duke of York ; 3 and 
Nicholls also had the example of Stuyvesant before him in 
opposing the freemanship idea. 4 Thus there were abundant 
reasons for Nicholls's refusal to adopt the freemanship prin- 
ciple; his own experience in New England, his instructions, 



a AT. Y. Col. Doc, III, 51-54, 57-63, 84, 110-113; Records of Massa- 
chusetts Bay, IV, pt. II, 129, 173-174, 186 ff., 200-211, 218 ff. 

1 The word freeman does occur once in the Laws, but in that case it 
means free man, N. Y. Col. Laws, I, 36. The words freeman or free- 
men are used twenty-five times in the New Haven Laws of 1656, and 
fifty-five times in the Massachusetts laws of 1660. 

8 By the Duke's charter he and his heirs are given power " to admit 
such and so many person and persons to trade and traffique unto and 
within the terrytoryes and islands aforesaid and into every and any 
part and parcell thereof and to have possesse and enjoy any lands or 
hereditaments in the parts and places aforesaid. . . ." 

'"None of the Townes of N. Netherlands are troubled with in- 
habitance, the which doe not Lyke her or her Magistrates, beinge 
reserved that they doe not admitt any inhabitance without approbation 
and acknowledgement of the Director Generall and Counsell. . . ." 
N. Y. Col. Doc, XIII, 211. 



204 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

the Duke's charter, and Dutch custom were all opposed to 
the exclusiveness of the New England corporation. 

But, although the laws made no provision for these sub- 
jects, there is reason to believe that the towns, at least in 
Long Island, acted upon the New England custom. The 
town books show many actions and by-laws of the town 
meetings relating to the admission of new inhabitants. 1 A 
person " not legally accepted" is ordered to leave Easthamp- 
ton, 2 and a " notorious thief" is rejected as an inhabitant. 1 
In Southampton, in 1676, after a division of the town lands 
had been made, the holders of the land could not sell or let 
them to any one except he were " approved of by ye Just; 
the minister ye constables and overseers of ye town." 4 And 
in Hempstead no " unresident" person could settle in the 
town without the consent of the town. 5 It is evident from 
these few illustrations that the towns kept control of the 
admission of inhabitants, and even imposed severe conditions 
upon intending settlers, as when, in Southampton, they must 
be acceptable to four sets of officials, including the minister. 

Since the Duke's laws omitted the subject of freemanship, 
it might be supposed that Nicholls would substitute some 
other form of qualification for the suffrage. But, in fact, he 
did not clearly define the voting class. The elective officers 
under the laws were constables, town overseers, gaugers of 
cask, militia officers, church wardens, and ministers. 6 In 
the case of militia officers alone the voting class is distinct, 
for these officers are to be elected by " the plurality of voj 
of the Soldiers." 7 

In the suffrage for the other officers, four different expres- 

1 E.g., East-Hampton Records, I, 282, 288, 324; II, 175. 

'Records, I, 371. 

• Ibid., II, 175. 

4 Ibid., 255. 

'Ibid., 28. 

9 Other officers not mentioned in the laws were occasionally elected 
by the towns; see Hempstead Records, I, 228; Huntington Records. 
I, 359-360. 

1 N. Y. Col. Laws, I, 50. All persons over sixteen years of age, in- 
cluding servants, and excluding certain judicial and ecclesiastical offi- 
cials and a few others, were to attend the militia trainings. 



The Suffrage in New York. 205 

sions are used in describing the electors : " householders," 
" inhabitants householders," " freeholders," " Inhabitants 
freeholders, Householders." In spite of the seeming variety, 
it is believed that these phrases all refer to the same class of 
citizens ; 1 and that the words " inhabitants" and " house- 
holders" are to be taken not in a substantive, but an adjec- 
tive, sense, qualifying the word " freeholders." The word 
inhabitant meant a householder, 2 and the suffrage must have 
been limited to inhabiting and householding freeholders. 

Although it is clear that Nicholls meant to limit the suf- 
frage to freeholders, yet there is no statement of the size of 
freehold required; and perhaps the variance in local condi- 
tions made it impracticable to adopt a general qualification. 

But the lack of deflniteness led to many contests and dis- 
puted elections in the several towns. It was the natural ten- 
dency of the original proprietors in the towns to desire to 

^he evidence for this belief is drawn from two sources: (a) the 
internal evidence of the Laws; and (b) the practice of the towns. 

(a) From the Laws. In one place the Laws speak of the elec- 
tion of overseers by the " Housholders," and in another place, by 
the " freeholders ;" and similarly the election of the minister is 
said to be by " the Inhabitants housholders ;" and by the " In- 
habitants freeholders housholders." 

(b) From the town practice. The town records use the words 
as loosely as do the Laws. For instance, in Southampton the 
phrases occur, " inhabitants or freeholders ;" " freeholders ;" " free- 
holders and Inhabitants" (Records, II, 279, 295, 305; also I, 135- 
138 note). In 1672 an election in Hempstead was contested be- 
cause persons had voted who were freeholders indeed, but held 
only small tracts, and it was maintained that a man must be not 
only a freeholder, but a freeholder of a certain number of acres, 
in order to possess the suffrage (N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 667). In 
1676 Andros granted a patent to the town officers of Southold, for 
themselves and "their associats, the freeholders and Inhabitants of 
the s<* Town," and subsequently these officers state, " All which 
freeholders we doe fully own ... to be our onely associats" (Town 
Records, II, 8-12). The last case shows that the town officers 
believed Inhabitants to be a qualification of the word freeholders; 
a man must be an inhabitant and a freeholder to be qualified to 
vote. 

"He who hath a house in his hands in a town, may be said to be 
an Inhabitant." Jacob's Law Dictionary, London, 1797. See post, 
Chap. XI. 



206 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

limit the right of suffrage to themselves or those who had an 
equivalent share in the town lands. As the towns increased 
in population, or lands were divided among the descendants 
of the early settlers, or poorer persons bought small tracts, 
there arose a class made up of freeholders, indeed, but free- 
holders who were not on a plane of economic or social 
equality with the original proprietors. Under these circum- 
stances, a contest between the two classes was bound to 
occur, and the governor usually threw his influence on the 
side of the wealthier class. 

As early as 1666 the Court of Assizes ordered that the 
" Dividing of Towne Lotts, thereby multiplying poor free- 
men and votes, to be rectified by the Sessions;" 1 but the 
remedy was evidently not satisfactory, for again in 1670 
the Long Island towns petitioned for legislation against 
" divers poor inconsiderable persons, who though they have 
but a Small Portion of a Lott, yett Expect to give their votes 
in Town Courts equal with ye best freeholders." 2 The peti- 
tioners feared that this tendency might " in tyme prove t 
destruction of ye place, in that it will come to be governed 
ye worst and least concerned of ye Inhabitants;" and again 
the Assizes referred the matter to the Court of Sessions. In 
the same spirit w r as the decision of the governor and council 
in 1680, limiting the suffrage in Flushing in public and town 
matters to those who held at least sixty acres of land, the 
proportion to which the original settlers were entitled. 3 
at a somewhat later period the voting upon land quest- 
in Southampton was taken not by persons, but by " fifti< 
keeping up the equality of votes according to the original 



1 Rept. of State Historian, 1896, 341. 

*N. Y. Col. Laws, I, 83. 

* " Whereas the former constitution of the s d Towne, at their 
settlement, in the yeare 1654, was in dividing their home Lotts, into 4 
acres a piece, then addicon of six acres, & after that 50 more to each 
Inhabitant None for the future shall be esteemed a Freeman of s 4 
Towne that hath not sixty acres of land within its limits, besides 

meadows & such as shall have the like proporcon of land & 

no other other to be esteemed Freemen for votes in publick or other 
town matters." N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 751. 



The Suffrage in New York. 207 

proportion of fifty acres apiece. 1 But the governor's power 
was not always extended to the large landholders, and in a 
disputed election case in Hempstead in 1672 the smaller free- 
holders were upheld in their claim to the right to vote. 2 

It was the latter policy which was to be adopted as the 
general principle for the colony and local elections in the 
next period of New York history. The increase in the value 
of land and the growth of population would make the fifty 
or sixty acres requirement a burdensome one ; and the later 
practice required the freehold to be of a certain value rather 
than of a certain size. 3 In some of the Long Island towns it 
is interesting to note a tendency towards proxy voting, but 
it does not appear to have become a general policy in any 
town. 4 

The provisions of the Duke's laws, which we have been 
discussing, did not at first hold good outside of Yorkshire ; 5 

^ven fractions of a proportion were counted. The town meeting 
"having under the consideration the Laying out a division of Land 
proceed to a voote by proxees as followeth 64^ fifties were for a 
division, 79^4 fifties were for no division." Town Records, II, 143, 
April 2, 1700. 

2 This election hinged upon the votes of certain persons who were 
said to " have small parcells of land & have no relation to the Towne, 
squall w* n ye Ancient Inhabitants, some Lotts being divided into 
overall shares." The decision of the governor states that the claimants 
were " Capacitated by the Law to give their Votes as fire-holders." 
V. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 667. 
8 See post. 

4 One case has already been referred to in the early history of 
3ravesend, N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 529. In Hempstead, in 1684, we 
lave the express provision " that it is agreed upon by the major vote 
hat for the future none of the Inhabitants of this towne bring in 
my Vots more then their owne except it bee through Sixness or 
^ameness and if Soe then they Send and order on the publique towne 
neeting that they gave him that brings their vote their order soe to 
)rocede for them and noe other votes to be of any Effect;" Town 
Records, I, 409, April 18, 1684. 

In Southampton, in 1700, voting on the public land matters was 
aid to be by "proxees;" but this may have meant ballots {Town 
lecords, II, 143). 
8 Long Island, Staten Island, and Westchester. 



208 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

but they were gradually extended to the upper Hudson 1 and 
Delaware settlements, although it is believed they were never 
fully in force in the Delaware region. 2 In New York City 
there were no elective offices until, in 1683, Governor Don- 
gan granted limited privileges by which the mayor, recorder, 
sheriff, coroner, and town clerk were to be appointed by the 
governor, and the freemen in six wards elected their own 
aldermen, common councilmen, constables, overseers of the 
poor, assessors, scavengers, questmen, and other officers. 3 
The word freemen was not here defined, but it may have had 
the meaning of the word in the Dutch days. Three years 
later, when a formal charter was granted to the city, 4 Don- 
gan permitted the popular election of aldermen, assistants, 
and petty constables, but the other municipal officers were 
chosen by the governor or the city authorities. The elective 
officers were to be " chosen by Majority of Voices of the 
Inhabitants of each Ward ;" a most vague provision, which 
later called for more precise definition. 5 Similar provisions 
are found in the Albany charter of the same year. 6 

During the short period of legislative activity from 1683- 
85, there were few changes in the provisions of the Dul 
Laws respecting local suffrage. In one case we find the 
word freeman 7 linked with that of freeholder ; in another 
case the word freeholders alone is used ; 8 and in still another 
act the popular election of militia officers was discontinued. 9 

In concluding the subject of the local suffrage during the 
years 1 665-1 691, it may be said that while with two excep- 

1 See Amer. Hist. Rev., VI, 717-718: Munsell's Annals of Albany 
VI, 20; VII, 97; Hist. Coll. of Albany, IV, 390-509 passim; N. Y 
Col. Doc, XIII, 428, 438, 449, 459, 471. 

* See treatment of Suffrage in Delaware. 
Z N. Y. Col. Doc, III, 338-9. 

* April 27, 1686, Col. Laws, I, 181-195. 

6 See post. 

* N. Y. Col. Laws, I, 195-216; Munsell, Annals of Albany, II, 62-8; 

7 Ibid., 131, chap. 9 of acts of March 1, 1683. Assessors and treasurers 
were to be elected by the major vote of the freeholders and freemen of 
each city, town, and county. 

8 Act of October 21, 1684, Col. Laws, I, 143. 
"Act of October 27. 1684, Col. Laws, I, 161. 



The Suffrage in New York. 209 

tions the suffrage franchise was limited to the land-holding 
class, yet no definite amount of land was set as a necessary 
qualification. The exceptions to this qualification are to be 
found in the case of the freeman in New York City during 
the period 1 683-1 686, and the election of militia officers by 
all the soldiers down to 1684. The most difficult question is 
that arising out of the use of the word " inhabitants ;" while 
the most picturesque features are to be found in the struggle 
of the small freeholders to obtain the franchise, and in the 
partial proxy system for the election of representatives. 



III. The Later English Period , 1691-1775. 
1. The Provincial Suffrage. 

The basis for the suffrage franchise in the royal colonies 
is to be found, first, in the commissions and instructions 
given by the English government to the colonial governors ; 
secondly, in the laws passed by the colonial assemblies from 
time to time ; and finally, in the local customs and interpre- 
tations which arose under these instructions and these laws. 
In New York, the commission of Governor Slaughter, of 
November 14, 1689, marks the legal beginning of a perma- 
nent representative system. The temporary instructions sent 
by William and Mary to Lieutenant-Governor Nicholson 
in July, 1689, did indeed authorize him to call to his assist- 
ance as many as necessary of the principal freeholders and 
inhabitants of the province. 1 But this vague provision would 
not have furnished an adequate basis for an assembly even if 
Nicholson had remained in control. And, as events proved, 
it was Leisler, and not the regularly commissioned governor, 
who attempted to revive the representative form of govern- 
ment. Since Nicholson did not have opportunity to carry 
Dut the power given to him, and since Leisler's assemblies 
iid not possess royal sanction, we must date the revival of 
'epresentation from Slaughter's time. 

By this commission the governor could call assemblies of 
he " inhabitants being freeholders," according to the usages 

l N. Y. Col. Doc, III, 606. 

14 



210 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

of the other American plantations. 1 The members of the 
assembly were to be " duely elected by the Major part of the 
Freeholders of the respective Countyes and places;" and 
islative power was vested in the governor, council, and 
sembly. 2 The phraseology of this document was 
copied in the commissions of later governors,' 5 and the J 
lish government contented itself with a general restriction of 
suffrage to freeholders without attempting to define the 
word. 

The first assembly under Slaughter took up the qiu 
and gave the word freeholder a legal meaning. By the act 
of May 13, 1 69 1, it was provided 

" That every freeholder within this Province and freeman in any 
Corporation shall have his free choice & voat in the electing, of the 
Representatives without any manner of Constraint or Imposition; and 
that in all elections the Majority of votes shall carry itt, and by free- 
holders is to be understood every one who shall have fourty shillings 
P Annum in freehold." 4 

This act, it will be seen, is identical with the requirement of 
1683, except that forty shillings income from freehol 
now expressed instead of giving a mere reference to the 
English qualification. The distinction between the county 
and the borough suffrage, which was to continue so long 
in New York history, is also established by this act. 5 
For a few years the colony enjoyed in comparative peace 

1 N. Y. Col. Laws, I, 221 ; N. Y. Col. Doc, III, 623. 

2 The relation of the governor to the council in legislation later led 
to disputes which were appealed to England for decision. 

1 In one commission, that of Governor Hunter, dated September 15, 
1 709, occur the words " assemblies of the Freeholders and Plan 
(N. Y. Col. Doc, V, 92-98) ; but the latter word does not again occur. 

4 N. Y. Col. Laws, I, 244. 

5 Under the royal government the Long Island towns, for a time at 
least, kept up the proxy, or indirect methods of election which they 
had adopted in 1683, as the following extract shows : "At a towne 
meeting (being legally Convened) ordered that by a Majr vote that 
Capt John Wheeler should on ye nth of ye Instant go to Southampton 
[to] carry our Towne proxes for the electing of Representatives for 
this County of Suffolk" (East-Hampton Town Records, II, 281 ; Octo- 
ber 5, 1692). 



The Suffrage in Nezv York. 211 

its newly found privilege of representation, and apparently 
did not feel the need of an elaborate regulation of elections. 
But by 1698 serious election difficulties had arisen. We can- 
not follow all the party struggles which led to these dis- 
orders, but both sides seemed willing to adopt unscrupulous 
methods. In this year it was said that the representatives 
elected were mainly " men of no great figure, Taylors and 
other mean conditions ;" 1 that the sheriff of Orange County 
had not permitted a single freeholder to vote, and yet had 
returned persons as legally members of the assembly ; 2 and 
that eleven out of the nineteen members of the assembly held 
positions by disputed elections. 3 The governor was forced 
to dissolve the assembly ; but in the succeeding election there 
was fighting in a number of places, not without some broken 
heads in consequence, and contested seats in the assembly. 4 

These disorders showed the need of a more comprehensive 
election law, and at the session of 1699 an act 5 was passed 
which remained in force without substantial change until the 
Revolution. In its preamble the act told the conditions 
which called for its passage : 

" Whereas of late ye Election of ye Representees to serve in Assem- 
bly in ye respective Cittys & Countyes of this province have been 
managed with great ourage tumult & Deceit to ye grevious oppression 
And Depriving of ye Subject of his Chief est Birthright in Chuseing 
of his Representatives in Assembly for Remedy whereof for ye time 
to come and y't ye Subject may freely enjoy his undoubted right of 
Electing his Representatives without Disturbance or molestacon. Bee 
it enacted," . . . etc. 

The qualification for the suffrage was changed from the fif- 
teenth century English law to one better suited to colonial 
conditions; that is, the forty-shilling income was changed to 

1 N. Y. Col. Doc., IV, 384. 

: Ibid., 395; 384; Ruttenber, History of the County of Orange, 45-46. 

'Ibid. 

* Ibid., 507; Smith, History of Nezv York, 97, 99 (London edition of 
1757). 

5 Act of May 16, 1699, N. Y. Col. Laws, I, 405 ff. Repealed by act 

i November 27, 1702, but the repealing act was disallowed by the 
Queen in 1708. Cf. English statute, 7 and 8 Wm. III., chap 25. 



212 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

a requirement that the elector possess lands or tenements to 
the value of forty pounds, in freehold, free of all incum 
brances, and have held them at least three months before the 
election. Representatives were to have the same qualifica- 
tions as electors, and both elector and elected must be over 
twenty-one years of age. In case a poll were necessary, the 
sheriff was authorized to appoint sworn clerks to set down 
the name of each elector, the place of his freehold, and the 
name of the person for whom he should vote. Any candidate 
might require any elector to take oath that he was a free- 
holder, that he had not been previously polled at the elect 
and had not procured his freehold in order to gain a v 
in the election. In New York City and Albany the suffrage 
was open to all freemen of the corporations who had resi 
in the city three months before the election. 

This act did not provide for election by ballot, nor did it 
include the elaborate provisions against fraud and e- 
which are to be found in the laws of Pennsylvania and Dela- 
ware. Yet from 1708 to the Revolution it remained the 
principal election law of the colony. Frequent legisla 
was had upon the subject of local suffrage, but the colonial 
elections were permanently limited to persons posse? s 
forty pounds value of freehold, or holding freemanship in 
either of the two cities. 

The act of 1699 did not have the quieting effect 
elections which its authors had hoped to gain from it. The 
party troubles continued, 1 and in 1701 the legislature passed 
a number of partisan measures; all of which, however, the 
succeeding legislature of 1702 repealed, together with the 
election act of 1699. 2 But the repealing act in turn was 

1 Smith's Hist, of N. Y. (London ed. of 1757), 99 ff; Journal of 
Legislative Council of N. Y., I, 168-170; Colonial Lazus, I, 450 
N. Y. Col. Doc, IV, 958. 

"N. Y. Col. Laws, I, 523. The preamble to the repealing act : 
follows : " For as much as Several Acts and Laws have lately been 
past in this Colony, with plausible and Colourable Titles and pre 
tences, some of them Incongruous, and unjust in themselves, others I 
obtain private and Sinister ends, under the Cloak of publick good: 
many pretended Acts as Laws, by persons unquallified by Right or Law 
to sit or act in the Legislative power, and by Several as were not the 



The Suffrage in New York. 213 

allowed by the queen on June 26, 1708, after the Crown 
had refused its consent to a number of other acts of the 
period, 1 700-1 702. 1 This disallowance of the repealing act 
restored legality to the act of 1699, and brought back to the 
statute-book a number of other laws, the principal among 
which for our purpose was one defining the nature of free- 
hold requisite for voters, and excluding Catholics from the 
suffrage. 

The act of October 18, 1701, extended the word freeholder 
to include any person who held land for his life or his w r ife's 
life, and declared him legally qualified to vote if the land 
were in sufficient quantity. Mortgages upon his freehold 
should not debar a man from the suffrage, if he were in pos- 
session and derived an income from the property. In this 
form the freeholder clause remained unchanged until the 
Revolution, with the exception of a minor clause in an act 
of 1769, which provided that the holding of lands in trust 
for a corporation or for pious purposes should not qualify 
the trustee for the exercise of the suffrage. 2 

Choice of the People, and all of them, instead of being for the profit 
and advantage of the Subject, as they ought to be, have been and 
prov'd to the Distruccon of property, the confining and Enervating of 
Liberty, Ruinous to Trade, to the Impoverishing of the People, a Dis- 
couragement to Industry and hurtfull to the Settlement and prosperity 
of the Colony." (Act of November 27, 1702.) 

1 N. Y. Col. Doc, IV, 1026; V, 48. 

2 Act of May 20, 1769, Col. Laws, IV, 1094. The act was subse- 
quently disapproved by king, June 6, 1770. The contested election of 
1737 led to a decision by the legislature that those who held freeholds 
of forty pounds, three months before election, could vote; but a 
grantee of a mortgage in fee forfeited, in possession of mortgaged 
premises for several years was not qualified by virtue of the mortgage 
(N. Y. Col. Doc, VI, 56). Governor Cornbury in 1708 proposed a 
novel plan of representation based upon tax assessments. The gov- 
ernor had found difficulty in getting the assembly to pass a duty on 
certain goods which the English government desired taxed. The 
country districts, wanting cheap goods, refused to vote for the measure, 
so the governor urged giving to New York City as many representa- 
tives as the rest of the province possessed; and this would not be so 
unequal, he said, since the last assembly had put one-half the tax 
assessments upon New York City (Col. Doc, V, 58). It is needless 



214 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

After 1 70 1 two more questions concerning the suffrage 
arose. One of these was the imposition of religious restric- 
tions by the disfranchisement of Catholics and Jews, and the 
other was the question of non-resident and plural voting. 
Among the various acts which had been passed in 1701, re- 
pealed by the subsequent assembly, and restored by the dis- 
allowance of the act of repeal, was the act of October 
1 701, already quoted, concerning freeholds. This act had a 
severe clause positively forbidding any papist, popish re- 
cusant, or any person refusing to take the various test on 
from voting for representatives or for any other officer what 
ever. 1 The act, however, had no punitive provision respect- 
ing this clause, and it is to be doubted if it was strictly 
enforced. 

Somewhat the same doubt surrounds the disfranchisement 
of the Jews in 1737. In that year a contest arose between 
two assembly candidates in New York City, Philipse and 
Van Home, over the result of the election, and the dispute 
was carried to the assembly for decision. In the argument 
which arose, Mr. Smith, later chief- justice, acted as counsel 
for Van Home, and urged that the apparent majorit 
votes for Philipse was gained through the votes of s 
Jews and some non-resident voters. Smith delivered an im- 
passioned speech, in which he described the death of Christ 
at the hands of the Jews, and urged that the curse still clung 
to the race and rendered them unfit for political duties. So 
vivid was his description that the staid legislators wept, 
the populace within hearing wanted at once to attack the 
Jews. The impression of the speech was so strong that the 

to say that the English government did not adopt the suggestion 01 
Cornbury. 

1 "... . from henceforth and for ever hereafter, no Pap: 
Popish Recusant, or Such person or persons as shall refuse Upon the 
tender and demand of the Sheriff, or either of the Candidates, to take 
the Oaths appointed by Law to be taken instead of the Oath- 
giance and Supremacy, and to Sign the Test and Association 
Directed by Law in other cases shall be Suffered to give his or their 
Vote or Votes for any Representative or Representatives to Serve 11 
this or any future Generall Assembly within this Province, or for any 
other Officer or Officers whatsoever." (Col. Laws, I, 452-4.) 



The Suffrage in New York. 215 

assembly passed a resolve altogether disfranchising Jews and 
refusing to count their votes in the contested election. 1 Both 
the act of 1701 and the resolve of 1737 were unrepealed at 
the time of the Revolution, but the enforcement of either 
must have been left to the local officers, and it is perhaps 
impossible to determine to what extent Jews and Catholics 
were actually disfranchised. 

The other phase of the suffrage, that of non-resident and 
plural voting, remains to be mentioned. As early as 1700 it 
was thought proper to permit a freeholder to vote in several 
counties if he held land in each; and to facilitate this plural 
voting, it seems to have been customary to hold the elections 
on different days in different counties. 2 In 1737, too, this 
right of non-residents was expressly affirmed by the legis- 
lature when objection was made to the counting of their 
votes in the disputed election case already mentioned. The 
decision of the legislature favoring non-resident voting, 
while in accord with the English practice, did not win popu- 
lar favor, when the opinion was held " that a personal resi- 
dence was as requisite in the elector, as communion of inter- 
ests by a competent freehold." 3 This popular opinion may 
have been strengthened by the participation of absentee free- 
holders in the provincial elections, while they were excluded 
from the local town meetings and elections, where only 
inhabiting freeholders could vote. 4 The limitation to inhabi- 
tants in the one case would tend to create a popular sentiment 
in favor of the same test for all elections. 

1 The Continuation of Smith's Hist, of N. Y. {Coll. of N. Y. Hist. 
Soc, 1826), 36-41; Dunlap's Hist, of N. Y. (N. Y., 1839), I, 318-319- 

2 In a petition against the actions of Lord Bellomont, March 11, 1700, 
it is said, — 

" That soon after his LordP issued out writts for chusing a 
new assembly, and the Election was appointed to be upon the 
same day in all places except the two most remote counties 
whereby the best freeholders who had estates in several coun- 
ties, were deprived of giving their votes at several elections/' 
N. Y. Col. Doc, IV, 621. See also Ruttenber, History of 
Orange County, 44-47; Bishop, History of Elections in Ameri- 
can Colonies, 69. 

3 Continuation of Smith's Hist., 37. 

4 See post, p. 219. 



Ji6 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

The non-resident voting was, however, continued, and 
tax-lists are extant for the city and county of New York 
1768 and 1769 in which the non-resident voters are 
ticularly designated. 1 In the latter year the subject cs 
up for discussion in the assembly and council during 
consideration of a new election law. Mr. William Smith, 
Jr., in the council, in opposing certain parts of the proposed 
bill, said that so far as it casts doubts upon the suffrage of 
non-residents that it interfered with a right which " is essen- 
tial to Liberty, clearly established by sound Exposition, and 
invariably followed." 2 The bill passed, but was sul 
quently disallowed by the king, probably because it required 
the representative to reside in the district which he rq 
sented. 3 An act of 1775 shows that the claim to vote n 
than once sometimes led to inconsistencies. The freeholders 
of the town of Schenectady and the manors of Rensseler- 
wyck and Livingston had claimed the right not only of 
electing the representative from those places, but also of 

1 See " A Copy of the Poll List of the Election for Representa- 
for the City and County of New- York ; which Election began On 
Monday the 7th Day of March, and ended on Friday the nth of the 
same Month, in the Year of our Lord MDCCLXVIII. Alphabetically 
Made." And similar list for election of Jan. 23-27, 1769. The non- 
resident voters are marked by the letters N R. In 1769 there were 
only six non-residents out of 1575 electors; in 1768 there were twenty- 
seven. 

2 Journal of Legislative Council, II, 1706, May 19, 1769. The bill 
also required representatives to reside in the district which they repre- 
sented. To this Mr. Smith said " incapacitating non-residents from 
representing their Electors is an alteration of the Election Act of 1699 
(the first section of which is nearly similar to the Statute of the 8th of 
H. VI. cap. 7) is repugnant to the constant usage of Parliament, and 
the general practice of the assembly, for near seventy years past, 
abridges the Right of Electors in all the Counties, and may be very pre- 
judicial to the City and County of New York in particular, where 

for many reasons most probable the greater number of non-resident 
Members would reside ; and it is the more unreasonable with respect 
to the city since this Capital sends only four out of twenty-seven Mem- 
bers, tho' it bears one third part of the Burden in all Publick 
Levies." 
s Act of May 20, 1769; disallowed, June 6, 1770. 



The Suffrage in New York. 217 

having a part in the election of a representative for the city 
and county of Albany. The act significantly forbidding the 
exercise of such a plural suffrage " in the right of such free- 
hold only," leads to the intimation that those who held free- 
holds in both parts might vote in each place. 1 

These illustrations are sufficient to show that throughout 
the colonial period the freeholder might, if he chose, vote in 
all the counties in which he possessed land ; 2 while to make 
this possible the elections were sometimes held upon different 
days in different counties, or the polls were kept open for 
nearly a week, during which a freeholder might visit several 
counties and cast his vote in each. 

Some few facts concerning the number of electors have 
been found. In 1735, in a disputed election for representa- 
tive from New York City, when a poll had been demanded, 
and the inhabitants had been brought to the polls in coaches 
and accompanied with drums and musicians, it was found, 
at ten o'clock at night, that one candidate had received 413 
and the other 399 votes ; and this in an election when " the 
zeal of the friends of the candidates was so great that it was 
supposed every voter in the city was brought out." 3 If this 
supposition were true, there were over eight hundred voters 
in a population of about io,ooo, 4 or eight per cent, of the 
population. A tax-list for 1761 shows 1447 voters in the 
city and county of New York; 5 and one for 1769 contains 
the names of 15 15 electors. 6 In the latter case it is inter- 
esting to note that out of the 1 5 1 5 electors 407 voted in the 

1 Act of April 3, 1775, Ch. 69 ; Laws of New York, I774S, 206-7. 

2 Early in the commonwealth period the "suffrage was limited to in- 
habiting freeholders. The act of March 27, 1778 (chap. 16) provided 
that no one could vote in state elections unless he resided in the district 
in which he offered to vote. Lazvs of the State of New York, I, 28 
(Albany, 1886). 

3 Valentine's Manual of the Corporation, 1869, p. 851. 

*Ibid., 1851, 352, gives the population of the city for 1737 as 10,664. 

5 " A Copy of the Poll List of the Election for Representatives for the 
city and County of New- York ; which -Election began on Tuesday the 
17th Day of February, and ended on Thursday the 19th of the same 
Month, in the year of our Lord MDCCLXI. Alphabetically Made." 

8 Similar list for election of January 23 to January 27, 1769. 



218 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

right of both freemanship and freehold, 506 were freeholders 
only, and 602 were freemen only. It would thus appear that 
in New York City two-fifths of the electors of representatives 
did not possess land, but voted in the right of their free- 
manship. 

According to Valentine's Manual, 1 the population in the 
year nearest to 1761 given therein (1756) was 13,040, and 
in the nearest year to 1769 ( 1771 ) it was 21,863. These 
figures would make the voting class in the city at from 
one-ninth to one- fourteenth of the total population ; ; 
taking into consideration the variation of dates, the ele« 
may have comprised about eight per cent, of the popular 
while two-fifths of these electors did not possess real es r 
but voted in virtue of their freemanship alone. 

The provincial suffrage during this period was first based 
upon the English custom, but in a short time the qualification 
was changed to a freehold of the value of forty pounds, or 
the holding of freemanship in either of the two municipal 
corporations. Catholics were by statute early excluded from 
the suffrage, and later Jews were disfranchised by resolution 
of the assembly. Non-residents could vote wherever the 
freehold lay, and might thus cast several votes in different 
counties. Voting throughout all the period was according 
to the English viva-voce plan. 

2. The Local Suffrage. 

The local franchise of the province of New York may be 
divided into five classes: (1) County elections; (2) city 
elections; (3) town elections and town meetings; (4) parish 
elections; (5) the meetings of persons interested in the c 
mon lands of the town. 2 A few words may be said about 
each of these forms of suffrage. 

1. County Elections. The earlier county officers were ap- 
pointed by the governor or by act of legislature,' 1 but by an 

1 1851, 353. 

" There were no militia elections in New York during this period. 
'Act of June 19, 1703. Col. Laws, I, 532-8; Act of October 13, 17*3. 
Col. Laws, I, 795-800. 



The Suffrage in New York. 219 

act of October 6, 1708, 1 entitled an " Act to Relieve this 
colony from Divers Irregularitys and Extortions," the coro- 
ners were to be elected by the freeholders of the counties. 
In the elaborate act of 1703 which established the repre- 
sentative county officers, 2 all elections for the supervisors, 
assessors, and collectors were to be made by the freeholders 
and inhabitants of the respective towns; and while subse- 
quent acts provided for the election of these officers in dis- 
tricts or precincts as well as in towns, yet the phrase " free- 
holders and inhabitants" is almost invariably used. 3 The 
use of a somewhat similar phrase has already been noted in 
the Duke's Laws, and it is believed that the class here de- 
scribed was inhabiting freeholders, as under the earlier code. 
The proof that the word inhabitant was meant as an addi- 
tional qualification for the freeholder rather than as an addi- 
tional class of voters is gained from the laws themselves and 
from the custom of the towns. In several instances the 
phrase " freeholders inhabiting within the said county" or 
district is used, thus giving clear evidence of the intention 
of the framers of the laws ; 4 while an inspection of the town 
books of Hempstead shows that none but freeholders were 
permitted to vote in that town. 5 

1 Col. Laws, I, 622. 

2 Act of June 19, 1703, chap. 133, Col. Laws, I, 539-542; the act of 
May 13, 1691 (Col. Laws, I, 237), was so vaguely worded that it led to 
many disputes. 

3 For the early laws on this subject see acts of November 12, 1709 (Ch. 
212) ; November 25, 1710 (Ch. 225) ; December 10, 1712 (Ch. 257) ; 
October 23, 1713 (Ch. 270) ; October 23, 1713 (Ch. 271) ; July 21, 1715 
(Ch. 297) ; July 3, 1718 (Ch. 354) ; June 24, 1719 (Ch. 397) ; June 24, 
1719 (Ch. 380) ; etc. 

4 Acts of June 19, 1703 (Ch. 133); July 21, 1715 (Ch. 297 and Ch. 
300) ; May 27, 1717 (Ch. 22> 2 )- See also Bishop, History of Elections 
in American Colonies, 222-3. 

5 The legal phrase " freeholders and inhabitants" is often used by the 
town clerks ; sometimes the term is simply " inhabitants ;" but in Hemp- 
stead the words are so used that we can gather from them the idea that 
only freeholders could vote. Thus the records from 1685 to 1704 speak 
of matters being concluded by " mager" vote of the town; after 1704 
the words " freeholders and inhabitants" are infrequently used, but the 
general term is merely " freeholders ;" while after about 1750 the legal 



220 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

The difficulty in picturing the voting class arises from the 
fact that the word inhabitant was never defined in the la 
and that the phrase was generally adopted by all officers 
and town clerks, so that it is almost impossible to find a 
thing else than the single legal phrase. The same cla 
was used throughout the colonial period, 1 and even app« 
frequently in the returns for the election of deputies to the 
provincial convention of April, 1775, 2 although here, as in 
the town records of the colonial period, the word inhabitant 
is sometimes used. In elections for county officers, with the 
possible exception of those for coroner, 3 the franchise 
restricted to inhabiting freeholders. No limitation of the 
necessary freehold, either as to size or value, having been 
found, it may be taken that any freeholder, of large or small 
estate, could vote in the county elections if he were an into 
tant of the county. 

2. City Elections. In these elections the principal pecu- 
liarity lay in the freemanship. The old burgherecht of the 
Dutch New Amsterdam had continued under the English 
rule, and was well expressed in an ordinance of the ma 
and aldermen in 1675-6: 

" Ordered that noe person or Merchant whatsoever shall sell, or 1. 
to bee sold, or put to sale any Goods, wares and Merchandizes by Re- 
tale upon paine to forfeit all such goods, wares and merchandizes un 



phrase is used almost exclusively. These variations were without doubt 
due to the idiosyncrasies of the clerks, but they show us that it made 
no difference whether the attendants at the town meetings and eler 
were called inhabitants or freeholders, or freeholders and inhabitants, 
and since this is true we are logically forced to the conclusion that the 
narrower term must be accepted. Records of Hempstead, II-IV passim 

1 Acts of March 24, 1772, Col. Laws, V, 395, 403; act of February 8. 
1774 (Ch. VIII) ; Laws of 1774-5, p. 12; act of March 19, 1774 (Ch. 
XLII), Laws of 1774-5, p. 70; April 3, 1775 (Ch. LXXVI), La^ 
1774-5, P- 212. 

2 Journal of Provincial Convention, April 20, 1775, I, 2-9. Elec- 
tions were said to be by " freeholders and inhabitants." by " freemen, 
freeholders and inhabitants" (N. Y. City); "by inhabitants," and by 
" freeholders." 

8 The act of October 6, 1708, named only freeholders as elec: 
coroners. 



The Suffrage in New York. 221 

such person or persons are Free-men or made Free or Burghers of this 
Citty, and settled housekeepers for the space of one year or given secu- 
rity for the same Unless by Special License from the Mayor and Alder- 
men with the approbacon of the Governor. And if any Person or Per- 
sons soe made free shall depart from this Citty by the space of six 
months Unless such Person or persons so departing shall during that 
time keepe fire and Candie Light and pay Scott and Lott shall Loose his 
and their freedome; and that all and every Merchant hereafter to be 
made free shall pay for the same, Six Severs; And all Handecraft 
trades [men] and others to pay two Bevers for their being made free- 
men; (Unless by Speciall order of Court)." 1 

By the provisional charter granted in 1683 the beaver 
skins were commuted into pounds and shillings, every mer- 
chant or shopkeeper paying three pounds twelve shillings 
for his freedom, and every craftsman one pound four shill- 
ings. 2 Dongan's charter gave to the mayor, recorder, and 
aldermen the power to admit freemen, but to make no greater 
charge than five pounds 3 for the f reemanship. Four days 
after the date of the charter the city authorities raised the 
fee to the limit permitted in the charter, 4 but in 1691 it was 
changed back to the sums required in 1683. 5 In 1694-5 6 it 
was further provided that every apprentice should be regis- 
tered with the city authorities, and upon completing a term 
of service of not less than four years should be made free 
of the city by his master, " if he have well and truely served 
him." Montgomery's charter of 1730 7 made no change in 
the freeman qualifications; and the fees of 1683, with the 
extension to apprentices in 1695, continued the method of 
gaining the freemanship until the Revolution put a stop to 
the municipal activities. Some laws were passed during this 
period respecting the suffrage in the city. An act of 1702, 
called forth by the " great Strifes Debates & Suites" which 
had previously happened, required voting freeholders not 
only to hold land in the city, but also to reside therein, and 

*N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll., 1885, 40-41. 

2 H>id., 45, 47. 

3 Ibid., 48; N. Y. Col. Laws, 181-195. 

*Ibid., 48. 5 Ibid., 50. 

1 Ibid., 52 ; January 16, 1694-5. 
7 N. Y. Col. Lams, II, 575-639. 



222 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

gave freemen the right to vote only in the ward in which 
they resided, provided they had taken their residence in 
ward three months before the election. 1 By the Montgoi 
charter electors were spoken of as " ffreeholders or ffree; 
Inhabitants of the said city," which was the requirement 
the act of 1702; while vestrymen were subsequently elected 
by the "wards." 2 An act of 1771 3 identified the v. 
freeholder as used in the charter with its use for the pro 
vincial suffrage, i.e., forty pounds value of freehold; 
required freemen to have held their freedom for three moi 
and have resided in the ward one month. This act 
required electors to declare whether they voted as freeli 
ers or freemen, a rule which had already been in use. 4 

The Albany charter of 1686, which remained the c 
tution of the city until the Revolution, prescribed that elective 
officers should be chosen " by the majority of voices of the 
inhabitants of each ward." The mayor, recorder, and all 
men could admit freemen, but none could be admitted except 
natural born or naturalized subjects of the King of England; 
and they could not be compelled to pay more than three 
pounds twelve shillings for merchant right or thirty 
shillings for craftsman rights in the city. 5 These sums v 
evidently retained in practice for strangers coming to the 
city, but for persons born in Albany the fee, in 1763, I 
reduced to two shillings, 6 and later was made still low 
The names of those admitted, except in a few instances, are 
not given in the records, 8 but occasional mention is made 
fees accruing from the admission of freemen. 9 

1 N. Y. Col. Lazvs, I, 490; disallowed by the queen, December 31. 
1702. 

2 Acts of November 29, 1745, Col. Laws, III, 506; and of Januar;. 
1770, Col. Laws, V, 85. 

8 Col. Laws, V, 228; continued by act of March 9. 1774. 

4 See poll lists of 1768-69. 

5 N. Y. Col. Laws, I, 209, 210; Munsell's Annals of Albany, II, 79"$° 
"Munsell, Hist. Coll. of Albany I, 144. 

1 Ibid., 172, 199. In 1769 it was reduced to one shilling six pence. 

8 Albany City Records are published in Vols. II-X of Munsc! 
nals of Albany, and Vol. I of the Hist. Coll. of Albany. 

9 Hist. Coll. of Albany, I, passim. 



The Suffrage in New York. 223 

The city elections are usually said to be by the " inhabi- 
tants." 1 but it is believed that this meant inhabiting free- 
holders and freemen, and in one case the electors are dis- 
tinctly so described. 2 A contested case in 1773 led to the 
adoption of rules regulating the suffrage, prescribing (1) 
that no alien could vote, no matter what his term of resi- 
dence; (2) British subjects having resided six weeks in the 
city had the right to vote in the wards they inhabited ; ( 3 ) 
no bond servant could vote during the time of his service ; 
(4) the votes of persons who had been bribed were null and 
void. 3 

3. Town Elections. The earliest act upon this subject is 
that of May 6, 1691, 4 which authorized the holding of town 
meetings and gave to the freeholders at these meetings the 
right to make prudential by-laws and to elect certain local 
officers. Other early acts also used the word freeholders 
alone 5 in defining the suffrage. In an act of 1702, 6 later 
disallowed by the queen, the voters of Kingston ("Kings 
Town") are spoken of as " freeholders and freemen" of the 
town, but no other application of the word freemen to town 
voters has been noticed. After 1703 the term " freeholder 
and inhabitant" is generally used in the laws and town rec- 
ords, and is believed to have the meaning ascribed to it for 
county elections. 7 

'Munsell, Annals of Albany, VI, 266. 'Ibid., 285. 

3 Munseil, Hist. Coll. of Albany, I, 254. 

k ■ An Act for the Enableing each Respective Towne within this Prov- 
ince to Regulate their Fences and Highwayes and make Prudentiall 
Orders for their Peace and Orderly Improvements," Col. Laws, I, 225. 

'Act of May 13, 1691, Col. Laws, I, 237; May 16, 1699, Col. Laws, I, 
427. The act of October 18, 1701, makes no mention of an electoral class, 
merely providing for elections by the " towns." 

1 Act of May 1, 1702, Col. Laws, I, 488. 

7 See Col. Laws, I, 539, 1033; II, 130; III, 54, 320, 415, 947, 959, 1017; 
IV, 944, 977; V, 405. It is interesting to notice that when the legislators 
desired to express the class which we to-day would call inhabitants, they 
used other phrases in addition to the "freeholder and inhabitant" clause. 
Thus taxes were to be levied upon " all & every ye ^freeholders, In- 
habitants Residenters and Sojourners of and in this Province" (Act of 
May 16, 1609, Col. Laws, I, 396-401). Other tax laws varied the word- 
ing somewhat, but almost invariably added another class to the free- 



224 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

4. Parish Elections. Under the Duke's Laws, ministers 
had been elected by the towns, but by the act of September 
22, 1693, 1 ten 4i vistry" men and two church wardens were 
to be elected in each parish in the counties of Richm< 
Westchester, and Queens and in the city of New York by 
the freeholders of the city or county, and the minister was to 
be selected by the vestrymen. There are but few later 
concerning these elections, one of which used the phrase 
freeholders and inhabitants, 2 another " freeholders" alone, 3 
and still another only " inhabitants." 4 It is most likely that 
these terms all refer to the class of local voters already men- 
tioned. In New York City a later act provided for the 
election of vestrymen by " each ward," 5 but afterwards the 
word freeholder alone is used, 6 and again the qualificati 

of voters for other city elections are established for the 
parish elections. 7 The apparent intention was to place the 
parish elections upon the same suffrage basis as the political 
elections of the towns and cities. 

5. Suffrage concerning Land Matters. Still another divi- 
sion of the population for voting purposes existed. 1 
arose out of the interest of certain persons in the unoccupied 
and common lands of the towns, which, having been granted 
to certain proprietors at the founding of the towns, con- 
tinued as a distinct right of their descendants and success 
The laws 8 gave to those thus concerned the right to make 
rules relating to the common lands and in certain cases to 
divide the lands among themselves. The phrases used in 
the laws describing this class of persons are " propriety 



holders and inhabitants. See Chaps. 8, 15, 20, 22, 29. 39, 43. 50 
56, 63, 71, 82, etc., of colonial laws. 

1 Col. Laws, I, 328. 

* Laws, III, 429, referring only to Richmond County. 

5 Col. Laws, I, 440-1. 4 Laws. V. 297. 

"Act of November 29, 1745, Col. Laws, III, 506. 

8 Act of January 27, 1770, Col. Laws, V, 86. 

T Act of February 16, 1771, Col. Laws, V, 228; revived and continued 
until 1780 by act of March 9, 1774, Laws of N. Y. I774~5> 45 

8 Acts of October 30, 1708, Laws, I, 633: of July 21. 1715, I 
882; of October 16, 1718. Laws, I, 1006; of February 19, 1756, Laws. 
IV, 41-3; and of January 27, 1770, Laws, V, 115. 



The Suffrage in New York. 225 

" owners," " joint tenants," " tenants in common," etc., all 
oi which sufficiently mark off the owners of such lands from 
those holding no share therein. 

The body of tenants in common differed from the " free- 
holders and inhabitants" of the ordinary town meeting by 
excluding some voters and including others not ordinarily 
permitted to vote in the town meeting. Thus there can be 
no doubt that there were freeholders in the towns who did 
not enjoy the rights in the commons, 1 and, on the other 
liand, non-resident freeholders may have been allowed to 
rote on matters which so directly concerned their own prop- 
erty interests. 2 The matters were to be determined by the 
owners resident in the colony, however, 3 thus ignoring any 
Droprietors, if there were such, resident in Europe. An 
inspection of the records of Hempstead shows that frequent 
meetings of the " freeholders and tennants in common of 
:he plain Land in the town abovesaid" were held, and by- 
aws and regulations concerning the care and division of the 
town land were adopted. 4 In such elections the proportions 
)f the early allotment of land were sometimes maintained, 
is in Southampton, w^here the voting is said to be by 
ri fifties," and even portions of a " fifty" might be voted. 5 
\ later act may have limited the voting in such elections to 
those who held full shares according to the early division. 6 

While an effort has been made here to enumerate the 
.arious forms of local suffrage, it will be noticed that the 
elections mentioned were almost all made up of freeholders 

1 N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 751. In the Southampton Records occurs the 
)hrase " those interested in the town lands," which may imply that there 
.vere some not so interested, Records, II, 252. 

2 It must be admitted that no proof has been found for the latter state- 
nent except the negative evidence coming from the general omission of 
he word "inhabitants" in connection with such meetings. See the 
arious references to the laws and to town action. 

3 Act of October 30, 1708, gave power to joint tenants here residing 
>y major vote to divide their lands. 

* Records of Hempstead, IV, 86, 216, 219, 248, 351, 375, 446-448, etc. 
'Southampton Town Records, II, 143, April 2, 1700. The term evi- 
lently referred to fifty acres. 
6 Act of October 16, 1718, Col. Laws, I, 1006. 

15 



226 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

and inhabitants, or, as we have interpreted the phrase, of 
inhabiting freeholders. The variations from this rule are to 
be found in the city elections of New York City and Albany, 
and in the elections and meetings concerning common land. 
It is believed that the double qualification of freeholdership 
and inhabitancy was required in county, town, and parish 
elections from 1703 until the revolutionary period. 



CHAPTER VIII. 
The Suffrage in New Jersey. 

New Jersey's history as a political organization begins 
with Stuyvesant's grant of a charter to the settlement of 
Bergen, on September 5, 1661. 1 Before that date, although 
some forty years and more had passed since the first settle- 
ment, there was no incorporation of the inhabitants either 
along the Hudson or on the Delaware. Indeed, the popula- 
tion was so small in numbers and so scattered geographi- 
cally that it would be the height of archaeological nicety to 
attribute any political activity to the settlers. Only one hun- 
dred and thirty-nine persons took the oath of allegiance to 
the new proprietors in 1665, after the coming of Governor 
Carteret to the colony, 2 and under the Dutch the number of 
heads of families must have been still smaller. And when 
the Dutch governor granted his charter in 1661, he gave to 
the residents of the Bergen territory a government similar 
to that which he had imposed upon other parts of the Dutch 
dominion; it consisted simply of a local court, composed of 
four officers, and possessing certain limited judicial, legis- 
lative, and administrative powers. In the selection of this 
court the people appear to have had no choice, for the yearly 
appointments were made by the New Amsterdam authori- 
ties from a double number of candidates proposed by the 
existing officers. 3 As this continued to be the method of 
government until the occupation of the country by the Eng- 
lish, it is scarcely of moment to apply the word suffrage to 
conditions which were fixed first by a local close corporation, 
and in the last resort by the general officers at New Amster- 
dam. It is not until the coming of the English that any 
element of popular government appears. 

By a hostile act against a friendly nation, Charles II. of 

1 Laws and Ordinances of New Netherlands, 403. 
* New Jersey Colonial Archives, I, 48-51. 
'New York Colonial Documents, XIII, 231. 

227 




228 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 



England on March 12, 1663-64, made his well-known grant 
to his brother, James, Duke of York, including within the 
lands so bestowed not only Maine and Long Island, but 
that from the west side of the Connecticut River to the 1 
side of the Delaware, 1 and giving James full and abs 
power to govern the inhabitants of the ceded terri: 
Before he had acquired possession the Duke had parted . 
a large share of his grant to two noblemen, Lord Berkeley 
and Sir George Carteret ; and on June 24 granted them the 
land between the Hudson and Delaware rivers " in as full 
and ample manner as the same is granted unto the said Duke 
of York." 2 And although Colonel Nicholls, the Di: 
governor at New York, strongly opposed the grant, 3 it re- 
mained valid, and soon was acted upon by the new : 
prietors. 

In the winter of 1664-5 Berkeley and Carteret proceeded 
to advertise their colony, and announced certain " Con 
sions and Agreements of the Lords Proprietors of the Pr 
ince of New Csesarea, or New Jersey, to and with all & 
every the Adventurers and all such as shall settle or plant 
there." 4 Considering the close relations of the propriet- - 
the king and the Duke of York, these concessions are re- 
markably favorable to the intending settlers. The liberty 
conscience was guaranteed, the political privilege of a gen- 
eral legislative assembly and of chartered towns and cil 
was promised, and the great inducement of cheap, air 
free, land was held forth. 

Before mentioning the suffrage conditions as laid 
in the concessions, it will be proper to call attention to the 
manner of obtaining land and the conditions imposed upon 
the settlers therein. During the whole colonial period free- 
holding w r as the most marked qualification for the suffrage 
in New Jersey ; and the question, therefore, naturally an 
upon what conditions could land be obtained? The | 

1 Learning and Spicer, Grants, Concessions, and Original Cons: 
of the Province of New Jersey, 3; Poore, Charters and Constituti 
I, 783. 

2 Ibid., 8; Smith, History of New Jersey, 60-61. 

1 New Jersey Col. Archives, I, 46-48. 

4 Learning and Spicer, 12-26. 



The Suffrage in New Jersey. 229 

prietary concessions gave to every free man going out before 
January I, 1665, one hundred and fifty acres for himself 
and the same amount for every able-bodied servant, well 
armed and provisioned, which he should bring with him ; and 
seventy-five acres for every weaker servant, male or female, 
over fourteen years of age. And upon attaining his freedom 
each Christian servant was to receive seventy-five acres. The 
only conditions required of the settler were that he should 
be fully armed, provisioned for six months, and that after 
March 25, 1670, he should pay annually a quit-rent of one- 
half penny for each acre which he had received. Settlers 
who should come to the colony after 1666 would receive 
smaller amounts of land, diminishing year by year, until by 
1668 the amount for an able-bodied settler was to be only 
sixty acres. 

It will thus be seen that the settler needed little more 
capital than sufficient to purchase his own equipment and 
arms; the proprietors demanded no money payment for 
lands, but at the end of five years — 1670 — the quit-rents 
should become due. It was further provided that all subjects 
of the King of England should be at liberty to plant and 
become freemen of the province. Thus land was the cheapest 
commodity in the country ; and a community whose members 
possessed thousands of acres of land might still be compelled 
to take up a voluntary contribution of nails in order to roof 
over the meeting-house. 1 Land was thus open to any free 
English subject who could get out to the new country; and 
its value must be expressed, not in terms of purchase money 
paid to the proprietors, for there was none such, but in 
terms of the cost of transportation of men, implements, and 
cattle thither. Indeed, land in America sometimes had a 
negative value, and it was necessary to pay persons to go 
out to it ; the owners hoping to be reimbursed by the growth 
of the country and advancement of trade. 2 Once in America. 
if the settler possessed a good character and was not politi- 
cally or religiously obnoxious, it was an easy matter to get 
land. Since agriculture was almost the sole occupation, he 

1 In Newark, April 17, 1669; Town Records, 18. 

2 See the inducements offered by the Dutch West India Company to 
settlers; N. Y. Col, Doc, I, 371. (March 4, 1650.) 



230 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

who did not possess land was usually a vagrant and socially 
dangerous. Hence, to the seventeenth and eighteenth cen- 
tury settler and statesman the possession of land meant little 
more than that the individual had a permanent and definite 
employment. 

With this understanding of the ease of acquiring land and 
the universality of land-holding, we are ready to look at the 
first definite suffrage qualifications laid down in New Jersey. 
The concessions provided for an annual session of an elective 
assembly chosen by the freeholders of the province : 

" The inhabitants being freemen, or chief agents to others of the 
Province aforesaid ; do as soon as this our commission shall arrive, by 
virtue of a writ in our names by the Governor to be for the pr. 
(until our seal comes) sealed and signed, make choice of twelve depu- 
ties or representatives from amongst themselves ; who being chosen are 
to join with the said Governor and Council for the making of such '. 
ordinances and constitution as shall be necessary for the present govern- 
ment and welfare of the said Province. But so soon as parishes, divi- 
sions, tribes and other distinctions are made, that then the inhabr 
or freeholders of the several respective parishes, tribes, divisions and 
distinctions aforesaid, do by our writts, under our seals (which we 
ingage, shall be in due time issued) annually meet on the first day of 
January, and choose freeholders for each respective division, tribe or 
parish to be the deputies or representatives of the same : which body 
of representatives or the major part of them, shall, with the Governor 
& Council aforesaid, be the General Assembly of the said Province, the 
Governor or his deputy being present. . . ." 

This regulation, made before the first body of emigrants to 
the new province had set out, provided for two kinds of 
assemblies: a preliminary representative body, chosen by 
the whole community of planters and settlers and their 
agents ; and a permanent representative organization, elected 
by the freeholders and based upon geographical districts. 
The latter assembly, thus composed of governor, council, 
and house of deputies, was given large powers. It could 
appoint its own meetings and adjournment, constitute courts, 
erect manors, hundreds, boroughs, towns and cities ; it could 
levy taxes, organize and train the militia, and naturalize 
foreigners; it should determine the method of land allot- 



The Suffrage in New Jersey. 231 

ment, and make provision for the support of government. 
The laws of the assembly must be consonant to reason and 
conform as nearly as convenient to the laws of England; 
and they must not be opposed to the interest of the Lords 
Proprietors nor repugnant to the Concessions; and lastly, 
the laws should remain in force only one year unless con- 
firmed by the proprietors. 

The Concessions had stated that the electors of the depu- 
ties in this assembly should be freeholders, but no definition 
or qualification of the word freeholder was given. Yet free- 
holder is a relative rather than a definite term, and particu- 
larly was the meaning of the word undetermined in 1665. 
It implied, however, certain legal proof of the right of pos- 
session, and often required the performance of express 
duties to the lord. In New Jersey these two qualifications 
of a freehold were translated into the terms " proprietary 
title" and " proprietary quit-rents;" and for over a hundred 
years they furnish the unchanging background for the his- 
tory of the province. We must now notice how the question 
originated. 

Before the news reached America that the Duke of York 
had ceded part of his territory to Berkeley and Carteret, 
Colonel Nicholls, whose orders had been to subdue and gov- 
ern all the land described in the King's patent to the Duke, 
had made land grants in what is now New Jersey. The first 
of these grants was made by Nicholls to several Long Island 
inhabitants who wished to settle on the site of the later town 
of Elizabeth ; and this grant was followed in the spring of 
1665 by a patent for lands along the coast southward and 
westward of Staten Island, called the " Monmouth Pat- 
ent." 1 When Governor Carteret arrived, in the summer of 
1665, to take charge of the province for the proprietors, he 

1 For the Elizabeth-town settlement and claims see W. A. Whitehead, 
A Review of some of the Circumstances Connected with the Settlement 
of Elizabeth, N. J., read before the N. J. Historical Society, May 20, 
1869 ; also Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietary Governments, 
42-45 ; Smith, History of New Jersey, 61-68. 

For the Monmouth patent see Learning and Spicer, 661-663; N. J. 
Archives, I, 43-46; Whitehead, East Jersey, 45-47, 61; Smith, New 
Jersey, 62. 



232 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

found that settlements had been made under these pat< 
but for the time being the previous settlers appear to have 
recognized his authority, and no question of jurisdiction 
arose for several years. 

The first three years of the provincial government 
consumed by the governor and council in allotting land, sur- 
veying tracts, and organizing local governments; and 
until April, 1668, did the governor issue a proclamatioi 
the freeholders to elect their delegates to an assembly. 1 The 
elections were held accordingly, and ten deputies were 
selected from six towns ; 2 and in May and November the 
governor, council, and deputies held sessions of the " A- 
bly" at Elizabeth-Town, at which a number of acts were 
passed. But no sooner was the representative system inau- 
gurated than the question of the suffrage arose. 

The governor in his writ had directed that all freeholders 
should take part in the elections, but now the disputed land- 
titles led to troubles at the elections. Many of the settlers 
on the Monmouth and Elizabeth-Town patents had refused 
to repatent their lands under the proprietors, and declined to 
take the oaths to the proprietors ; and thus in a short time 
after Carteret had issued his writ for the first election the 
necessity arose for a definition of a freehold. The governor 
and council met the conditions boldly by refusing altogether 
the suffrage to those who would not take' the oath of alle- 
giance : 

" Prohibition for those at Navesinks to bare any office or have any 
Vote in Election till they have taken the Oath. 

"... No person or persons are to be admitted as a Freed man or 
Freholders of this Province of New Jersey . . . untill they have taken 
or subscribed to the Oath of Aleagance to our Soveraign Lord the King 
and his Successors and to be true and faithfull to the Interest of the 
Lords Proprietors. . . ."' 

But it was difficult to enforce such a rule when voting 
done in the towns without any control by the governor and 

1 N. J. Archives, I, 56; Whitehead, East Jersey, 59. 

2 Whitehead, East Jersey, 59, note 3. 
8 .V. /. Archives, I, 58. 



The Suffrage in New Jersey. 233 

council. Naturally, the next step was to threaten the towns 
which permitted illegal voting. The inhabitants of Wood- 
bridge had been granted a charter, 1 with the right to elect 
local magistrates and deputies to the assembly ; but they had 
admitted some illegal voters to their town meetings, and 
now Governor Carteret threatens them with the forfeiture 
of their charter. This proclamation goes a step farther 
than the one to Navesinks, where the requirement was only 
the taking of the oaths, by demanding also the formal pat- 
enting of lands as a qualification for voting : 

" Whereas I have Reseved information that ther are severall persons 
which you have Admitted to have ther voices in ye towne meetings, that 
have not any Land Surveyed and pattented according to theire Articles 
and the tenner of the Charter granted to your Corporation, But on the 
Contrary in Contempt doe Wilfully neglect the same, Against the Lords 
Proprietors Authority, and to the prejudice and hindrance of all other 
honest minded men, as also the indangering of the breach of your 
Charter by ye suffering of such malignant Spirits to live amongst you, 
or to have anything to doe in your publick afairs, for the preventing 
whereof I have thought good by the advise of my Counsell to signify 
this unto you; That all such persons that are not conformeable to the 
Tenner of your Charter, and that have not pattented their land accord- 
ingly are not from this day forward to [be] Accompted as freholders, 
and by Conciquence are not to have any once whatsoever ; nor to have 
any vote or voice in your towne metings upon any publick busines 
whatsoever; nor yett to enjoy any lands within the bounds of your Cor- 
poration; but [it] shal and may be lawful for you to dispose of those 
lands intended for them for the other persons that will be obedient or 
submit themselves to the laws and government of the province. . . ." 2 

This was in October, 1670, and in the mean time the 
proprietary quit-rents had become due, March 25, 1670, and 
nany of the inhabitants of the tracts granted by Nicholls 
efused to make the payments to the New Jersey proprietors. 
The Newark settlers had provided for the prompt payment 
3f their rents, 3 but the Elizabeth-Town and Monmouth pat- 
ent inhabitants refused to pay, claiming their prior grants. 

1 See charter in N. J. Historical Society Collections, I, 184. 

2 N. J. Archives, I, 63. 

3 Newark Town Records, N. J. Hist. Soc. Coll., VI. 30. 



234 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

Several irregular meetings of deputies were held during 
period, 1 presumably to take general action against the ] 
prietors. In May, 1672, representatives of five towns met 
at Elizabeth-Town, and, taking advantage of the abseno 
Governor Carteret in New York, they elected James ( 
teret, a son of the proprietor, Sir George Carteret, as " Presi- 
dent of the Country." 2 Upon this the governor was c 
pelled to return to England, where his actions w< 
tained by the proprietors, even against Carteret's own son. 

Governor Carteret returned to the province with docu- 
ments confirming his own authority, the rights of the pro- 
prietors, and vesting political power within the province in 
those only who held proprietary titles to their lands. The 
king sent over a letter directed to the governor and council 
of the province commanding all persons to yield allegiance 
to Berkeley and Carteret. 3 The proprietors forwarded 
declaration of the true intent and meaning of the Conces- 
sions," in which the old Nicholls patentees were expn 
excluded from the suffrage : 

" . . . no person or persons whatsoever shall be counted a free- 
holder of the said Province, nor have any vote in electing, nor be capable 
of being elected for any office of trust, either civil or military, until he 
doth actually hold his or their lands by patent from us, the Lords pro- 
prietors." 4 

These documents were published by the governor upon 
arrival, and warnings sent to the towns to have their lands 
surveyed and registered. 5 But the process of reducing all 
the inhabitants to the rule of the proprietors was unexpect- 
edly interrupted by the reconquest of all the region from 
the Delaware to the Hudson by the Dutch in the summer 
of 1673. 

After the Dutch fleet had taken New York City, the 
Jersey towns near New York sent commissioners to the 

1 Whitehead, East Jersey, 60. note 3 ; 66-69. 
1 Ibid., 67. 

3 Learning and Spicer, 38. 

4 Ibid., 32-34; Whitehead, East Jersey, 71. 
*N. J. Archives. I. 119. 



The Suffrage in New Jersey. 235 

Dutch officers at New Orange (New York), yielding their 
allegiance to the Dutch, 1 and receiving in return the same 
privileges as those granted to the Dutch towns. 2 In the 
towns, where the charters of Governor Carteret had granted 
the local suffrage to all freeholders, the Dutch established 
the system of double nomination which had been such a dis- 
tinctive feature of their earlier government in the New 
Netherland region. 3 The Dutch retained control of their 
old territory only a few months, and in February, 1674, the 
New York, New Jersey, and Delaware lands were all re- 
stored to the English by treaty, occupation being taken by 
Edmund Andros for the English in October, 1674. 

After the retrocession of the lands to the English, King 
Charles made a second grant to his brother James, 4 and 
James in turn made a second grant of New Jersey. 5 But 
this new grant was made only to Carteret and did not in- 
clude all the province, for as early as March, 1673, Berkeley 
had disposed of his undivided half of New Jersey to John 
Fenwick in trust for Edward Byllinge. 6 The Duke of York 
thus recognized the division of the province, and in his grant 
to Carteret gave him the better part of the territory: that 
north of a line drawn from Barnegat Creek to a point on 
the Delaware below Renkokus Creek. The division of the 
land made by this grant was naturally not acceptable to the 
successors of Berkeley, and on July 1, 1676, a quintipartite 
deed of division was drawn up between Byllinge and his 

l N. Y. Col. Doc, XIII, 473. 

*N. J. Archives, I, 124. At the time of the surrender to the Dutch, 
there were estimated to be 391 male inhabitants (freeholders?) in the 
province, of whom 327 took the oath of allegiance to the Dutch {Ar- 
chives, I, 133). 

3 N. Y. Col. Doc, XIII, 477; JV. /. Archives, I, 126. A most curious 
system of triple nomination and indirect election was established. Each 
of the English towns in New Jersey was to elect two deputies ; these 
deputies were to meet and to nominate three persons for schout (sheriff) 
and three for secretary, and from these nominees the Director and 
Council would select one for each office. 

4 Learning and Spicer, 41-45. 

5 July 29, 1674. Learning and Spicer, 46-48. 
'Whitehead, East Jersey, 81. 



236 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

assignees on one part and Carteret on the other, by which 
the share of the Berkeley claimants, now called West Jer 
was very considerably enlarged. 1 From this time until the 
assumption of control by the Crown in 1702, New Jersey 
was divided into two political organizations, with distinct 
policies and development. We must, therefore, turn our 
attention first of all to the continuation of the struggle 
between Carteret and his settlers in East Jersey, and then 
take a summary view of the suffrage as it existed in V 
Jersey under the proprietors. 

Upon his return to the province after the Dutch 00 
tion, Governor Carteret was again fortified with ample 
powers to bring the malcontents upon the Nicholls gran' 
terms. A second letter from King Charles was obtained, 
acknowledging Carteret's title and commanding all to yield 
him obedience; 2 still more additional directions were made 
supplementary to the original Concessions." One year's time 
was given to the Nicholls patentees to repatent their la 
and at the end of that time, if the new registration were 
made, the lands and homes of the occupiers were to be for- 
feited. No one could vote nor hold office unless his land 
was obtained by the proprietary title ; and the people of one 
of Nicholls's grants w r ho had peaceably submitted were re- 
warded with greater political privileges in matters of local 
government. Thus threats and hopes of rewards were both 
used to bring the obdurate settlers to a recognition of the 
proprietary rights. 

The reasons for the refusal of the old settlers to take out 
new patents were threefold : the inconvenience of new sur- 
veys and registration, the fees and cost of repatenting, and 
the perpetual quit-rents which the new patents requ;; 
The governor made the matter as convenient as possible 
appointing special days upon which inhabitants could I 
out their patents, and thus become " quail ified as well for a 
Generall Assembly as Elective for other Offices." 4 The 

1 Learning and Spicer, 61-72. 

-Ibid., 49. 

3 lb id., 50-57. 

1 .V. /. Archives, I. 176. 



The Suffrage in New Jersey. 237 

second assembly of the province met in the fall of 1675, 1 an< ^ 
from that time until 1688 frequent assemblies were held. 
Yet the electors and members of these assemblies appear not 
to have been always qualified according to the instructions 
of the proprietor; 2 many of the old inhabitants must still 
have refused to patent their lands under the proprietor ; and 
vet the governor could not prevent their voting and even 
sitting in the assembly. 

Other difficulties now beset the province. The Duke of 
York's governor in New York, Edmund Andros, claimed the 
right to levy customs duties upon all ships entering New 
Jersey ports: and in the conflict of authority which arose 
over the subject Andros entered New Jersey, seized Governor 
Carteret, and imprisoned him in New York. 3 A jury failed 
to convict Carteret, and the case was sent to England for 
the consideration of Sir George Carteret and the Duke of 
York. In the interim Andros ruled East Jersey, and per- 
mitted the inhabitants a privilege which his master had 
denied New York, a representative assembly. This assem- 
bly stood upon their rights under the concessions and as 
Englishmen when Andros tried to force the Duke of York's 
Book of Laws upon them : 4 

" 1680 New Jersey Assembly to the Go : 

"June 2 n d Wee the Deputies of the Freeholders of this Province of 
New Jersey doe expect that all privileges belonging to Inhabitants & 
Freeholders of the s d Province granted to them by Vertue of the Con- 
cessions made by the L<* John Berkeley & S r George Carterett bee to all 
Intents & Purposes allowed & confirmed & maintained to the aforesaid 
Inhabit nts & Freeholders without any Infringment: one particular 
principal whereof is as of right belonging to every free borne English- 
man, that there bee a Generall Assembly called once a yeare . . ." 5 

The independent attitude of the assembly was shown not 
only towards Andros, but also towards Governor Carteret 
when, after the disavowal of Andros's acts, he was reinstated 

1 Learning and Spicer, 94. 

" N. J. Archives, I, 364. 

1 Smith, New Jersey, 68 ; Whitehead, East Jersey, 93. 

4 AT. Y. Col. Doc, XIII, 541 ; AT. /. Archives, I, 296-7; 305 ff. 

'Ibid., 311. 



238 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

in authority. The assembly of October, 1681, appears to 
have been under the influence of the settlers upon the Nich- 
olls grants, and accordingly the session was a very stormy 
one, in which the assembly protested against the orders of 
the proprietors in 1672, which had limited political privileges 
to those who held proprietary titles ; and the governor denied 
the right of many of the assembly to sit in the house at all 
because they did not possess patents from the proprietors. 1 

This was the last assembly held under the authority of the 
Carterets, and it was the most turbulent. Throughout the 
whole period in which Sir George Carteret or his family held 
East Jersey the province was in a state of turmoil over the 
land question. The disputes arose out of the unfortunate 
grants made by Nicholls, and their termination was 
reached until over fifty years had passed. The proprietors 
used every means within their power to bring the Nicholls 
patentees to terms. Forcible eviction was threatened, and 
perhaps tried in a few cases; submission was encourage*: 
granting additional privileges to those who had peaceably 
acknowledged Carteret's authority; and as a last resort, in 
the instructions of 1672 and 1674, the proprietor had directed 
that those refusing to recognize his authority should be 
debarred from political privileges, both in the towns and in 
the provincial elections. But the situation was one in which 
the possessor was stronger than the absent proprietor or 
governor in the colony; evictions were almost impossible 
when such a large part of the population was concerned. 
The occupiers retained possession, and in addition often exer- 
cised political rights. The whole situation is most interest- 
ing as showing the close connection between political privi- 
leges and land-holding; and it illustrates the difficulty of 
enforcing abstract title rights in a new country. 

After the death of Sir George Carteret in 1680, the trus- 
tees of his estate sold East Jersey at auction to William Penn 

1 N. Y. Col. Doc, III, 293-300; N. J. Archives, I, 354-365. Concern- 
ing the additional instruction of 1672, the Assembly said : " The Lords 
would likely neuer haue had a thought of such Contradicc'on of them- 
selves had it not been a bratt begotten in New Jersey sent for England 
to be borne and Retransported to New Jersey to be fed with the groanes 
and Oppressions of the People." (Archives, I, 363.) 



The Suffrage in New Jersey. 239 

ind eleven associates. 1 And shortly after this each of the 
welve purchasers disposed of one-half of his share to 
mother, thus making in all twenty-four proprietors. In 
order to make their title to the province more secure, the 
lew proprietors obtained a new release from the Duke of 
York 2 and a letter from the king recognizing their right 
o their purchase. Having thus settled their title, the pro- 
)rietors appointed a governor, Robert Barclay, the famous 
3uaker apologist, and Barclay in turn appointed a deputy 
,vho was to reside in the province. 

Following these first steps in provincial organization, the 
Droprietors of East Jersey issued a most remarkable political 
rode for the province, called " The Fundamental Constitu- 
tions for the Province of East New Jersey in America." 3 
This frame of government provided in elaborate terms for a 
*reat council composed of the twenty-four proprietors or 
:heir proxies and representatives of the freemen to the num- 
Der of seventy-two or one hundred and forty-four. A great 
idvance was made by the constitutions upon the subject of 
:he suffrage. The old vague term " freeholder" was care- 
fully defined, and non-freeholders who rented houses in 
towns were allowed the privilege of voting: 

" The persons qualified to be freemen, that are capable to choose and 
be chosen in the Great Council, shall be every planter and inhabitant 
dwelling and residing within the Province, who hath acquired rights to 
and is in possession of fifty acres of ground, and hath cultivated ten 
acres of it ; or in boroughs, who hath a house and three acres ; or have 
a house and land only hired, if he can prove he have fifty pounds in 
stock of his own." 4 



Thus a decided step towards political equality was proposed 
by the proprietors, and the artisans and small freeholders of 
the towns were placed upon an equality with the larger free- 
holders of the country districts ; while the rights of the latter 

1 February 1 and 2, 1681-2 ; Learning and Spicer, 73 ; Whitehead, East 
Jersey, 103. 

2 Learning and Spicer, 141-150. 
'Ibid., 153-166. 

4 Article III of the Constitutions. 



240 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

were restricted by requiring the country freeholder to be in 
possession, and to have under cultivation at least ten acres 
of his freehold. 1 The proposed arrangement, which 
nearer to political equity than the old qualifications, had one 
defect, for by it the freeholder must have " acquired rights 
to" his land ; and this might lead, and indeed eventually did 
lead, to the old trouble concerning proprietary titles. 

Among the proprietors, who were to constitute one house 
of the assembly, the suffrage qualifications were closely lim- 
ited. No proprietor could retain his vote unless he kej 
least one-fourth of his propriety; and as there were two 
four proprieties at first, at least one-ninety-sixth of the wl 
province of East Jersey must be retained by each proprid 
If any proprietor thus forfeited his right to vote in the | 
prietary council, his right might be passed on to others \ 
held the required amount, or after forty years had elapsed, 
and vacancies still appeared, then selections might be m 
from those possessing five thousand or three thousand a 
of land. As an apologist for the Fundamental Constitut 
says, — 

" To avoid Lording over one another, No man can purchase abov 
the 24th part of the Countrey ; and on the other hand, least any should 
squander away their Interest, and yet retain the character of the Gov- 
ernment that belongs to Property, and thence be capable to betr; ; 
as not being bound by Interest, there must be a suitable quantity re- 
tained, otherwise the Title in the Government extinguishes in him, and 
passes to another, to be Elected by the Proprietors, that Dominion may 
follow Property, and the inconveniency of a Beggarly Nobility and 
Gentry may be avoided." ~ 

Such was the seventeenth and eighteenth century conception 
of political rights; dominion should follow property, and 
the privilege of participating in government was conditioned 

1 The requirement that part of freehold should be cultivated 
in Penn's Laws Made in England ; in Markham's Frame for Penna : 
Penna. Act of November 27, 1700. and January 12, 1705-6. and Dela 
Act of 1734- 

- George Scot in Model of the Government of the Province of East- 
New-Jersey, London. 1685: reprinted in A r . /. Hist. Soc. Coll.. I. 2y)ff: 
269. 



The Suffrage in New Jersey. 241 

upon the antecedent participation in the wealth of the coun- 
try; the politically efficient were those " bound by Interest." * 

This proposed code never went into effect, for, although 
the proprietors thought they had granted many new privi- 
leges in the Fundamental Constitutions, the people and as- 
sembly did not view the code in the same light ; further, the 
new frame was to go into effect only upon those who would 
submit to a new survey of their lands, accepting new titles, 
paying all old quit-rents, and who promised to make pro- 
vision for the support of the government. 2 Such restrictions 
would have defeated a much better constitution than the 
Fundamentals of 1683. The governor in the province was 
compelled to retain the government under the Concessions of 
1665, and in April, 1686, the assembly decidedly refused to 
accept the new frame. After that time it is supposed that no 
further action was taken towards the establishment of the 
:ode. 3 

But one more feature of a constitutional nature remains to 
be noted before the surrender of East Jersey to the Crown. 
Between 1686 and 1702 the province had passed through 
many experiences; comparative peace had reigned between 
1686 to 1688, and then the land was turned over to Andros 
as part of his " Dominion of New England;" from 1689 till 
1692 there was no general provincial government whatever; 
then came a few years of quiet until the arrival of Governor 
Basse in 1697. During all this time the only consecutive 
policy was the popular opposition to the proprietary quit- 
rents. So unsatisfactory and costly was the collection of the 
rents, that at last the proprietors proposed to commute them 
into a single payment, and then vest the land in fee in the 
holders. 4 At this point the proprietors used the same threats 
and promises which Carteret had employed in 1672 and 
1674. It was provided that when the people have purchased 
it least one-half of the quit-rents and paid arrears of rents, 

1 Cf. the Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776 : " All men, having sufficient 
evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the 
immunity, have the right of suffrage." 

'Learning and Spicer, 179-181. 

'Whitehead, East Jersey, 133; 134, note 1. 

* Learning and Spicer, 214-219. 

16 



242 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

and the assembly has made provision for support of the gov- 
ernment, then the governor may agree to a general law for 
the annual meetings of assembly, and the assembly may 1 
the power to name a double number of candidates for local 
county offices, the governor selecting a single number for the 
offices; but if in any county or town a major part of 
freeholders do not so commute their rents, then that t 
or county should not have the privilege of nominatio: 
their officers by assembly, but the governor should appoint 
all local officers ; provided, that such political privileges as 
were granted under these terms should continue only so long 
as the assembly made provision for the support of the gov- 
ernment. 1 

It was but natural that Englishmen should reject such 
propositions as these ; for, although the payment of the quit- 
rents may have been a reasonable, or at least a legal, claim 
of the proprietors, the conditioning of political privileges 
upon the payment of the rents was vicious in principle. 
These were the people who in 1680 had told Andros I 
it is a " right belonging to every free borne Englishman 
that there bee a Generall Assembly called once a year 
now their " birth-right privileges" must be bartered for quit 
rents at the rate of a ha'penny an acre. Yet the colo: 
w r ere ready to pay off the rents if an equitable agreen 
could be reached, and w r ent so far as to send a special agen 
to England to confer with the proprietors. 2 But in draw 
up a statement of the rights of the subjects in 1699, tin 
assembly omitted to give any other qualification of the suf 
frage than simple freeholdership, 3 thereby ignoring all th< 
proprietary claims to rents or new- surveys. 

There followed several years of confusion and disorder 
The governor appointed sheriffs and county officers in ac 
cordance with his instructions, but the people refused to obe; 
them and violently attacked the justices and sheriffs, am 
even kept Governor Hamilton in confinement for Severn 

1 Instructions to Governor Basse, April 14, 1698, Learning and Spice 
214-219. 

2 Whitehead, East Jersey, 193. 
* Learning and Spicer, 368-372. 



The Suffrage in New Jersey. 243 

days. 1 In these days, called the " Revolution," the governor 
attempted to dispossess some of the settlers of their lands, 2 
and at last the people petitioned the king to take the govern- 
ment into his own hands. 3 It was undoubtedly believed at 
this time that with the overthrow of the proprietary govern- 
ment would go all the proprietary quit-rents and troubles 
over the ownership of the soil. 4 The transfer to the Crown 
was made in 1702, 5 and after that change in authority the 
suffrage dispute centred about other matters than the abstract 
title to land. 

We must now retrace our course to the year 1676, in which 
the division of New Jersey into the two sections, East and 
West Jersey, was made by the drafting of the quintipartite 
deed. In the western section, as in the eastern, the subject 
of land titles was a perennial source of trouble, but there was 
one difference between the two divisions in favor of West 
Jersey. In East Jersey the land troubles arose between the 
settlers and the proprietors, giving rise to strong protests 
and revolutionary acts against the proprietors on the one 
hand, and to evictions and political disfranchisement of the 
settlers on the other. In West Jersey the land disputes were 
generally among the proprietors or proprietary claimants 
themselves, and there was no definite arraying of popular 
classes against the large hereditary owners of the land. And 
it will be seen also that West Jersey enjoyed a larger measure 
of local self-government and more freedom from European 
restraint than was the case in East Jersey. Thus, down to 
the union of the two divisions and the assumption of control 
by the Crown in 1702, the history of West Jersey shows less 
turbulence and violence than is to be found in the eastern 
section. 

It is, of course, not our purpose to study in detail the land 
disputes, but clearness demands that a short statement be 
made of the title changes in West Jersey down to 1702. In 

1 Whitehead, East Jersey, 215. 

2 New Jersey Historical Society Collections, V, 30. 

3 Ibid., 30, 32. 

* Whitehead, East Jersey, 214. 

5 Learning and Spicer, 609-617. The transfer papers were signed April 
15, 1702, and accepted by the queen on April 17. 



244 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

the year 1673 Lord Berkeley had sold his undivided share 
in New Jersey to John Fenwick in trust for Edward 
linge; and a contest arising between Byllinge and Fein, 
William Penn was appointed arbitrator by a Friends' n 
ing in London, and Penn awarded an undivided tenth 
West Jersey to Fenwick and the other undivided nine-tc: 
to Byllinge. After much pressure, Fenwick accepted 
decision, while Byllinge turned over his nine-tenths to Penn, 
Laurie, and Lucas as trustees for his creditors. Fenv 
then mortgaged his one-tenth to Eldridge and Warner on a 
one thousand-year lease for £110, and having thus disposed 
of his land, set sail for America ; and, the only one of all 
the proprietary claimants upon the spot, Fenwick began 
granting lands without regard to the rights of Byllinge's 
trustees or his own mortgagees. In the mean time, sak 
land having been made in England to so-called propriei 
it was proposed to divide the land into tenths, and a comp 
of proprietors from Yorkshire agreed to settle upon on- 
these tenths, and a company from London upon anot 
The proprietors in England then elected Byllinge as gov- 
ernor and allowed him to appoint a deputy. In 1680 
order to make the title more secure, a new grant was obta: 
from the Duke of York, but this only complicated ma* 
by granting the lands to the assignees of Fenwick and I 
linge, but the political power to Byllinge himself. Bylling 
power in the colony was not at first recognized, but later 
governor was accepted. In 1683 Fenwick sold all his shan 
in West Jersey except 150.000 acres to William Penn 
ten shillings, and thus one of the most disturbing elem 
of the colony was quieted. 1 After Byllinge's death in 1687 
Daniel Coxe, of London, already holding a large propria 
interest, bought the rights of Byllinge's heirs and claimed th< 
sole political authority: but in 1692 Coxe transferred hi* 
interest to a company of proprietors, who styled themsc 
the W r est Jersey Society, and who appointed their first g 
ernor in the same year. This society retained the land an< 
political rights until the surrender to the Crown in 170J 

1 For the interesting personality of John Fenwick, see R. G. Jo 1 
History of Salem (N. J.) : Shourds, Fcnzvick's Colony: N. V 
XII : N. ]. Archives, I : Smith. History of N. /.. 79 ff* 



The Suffrage in New Jersey. 245 

,vhen they yielded their political power, but their title to all 
inoccupied land is still (1904) valid, and the society keeps 
,ip its organization in West Jersey. 1 

Turning now to the subject of the suffrage in West Jer- 
sey, we need not mention the informal meetings held by 
Fenwick 2 in his colony, but must notice first of all the suf- 
frage provisions in the first frame of government for West 
Jersey, called " The Concessions and Agreements of the 
Proprietors, Freeholders and Inhabitants of the Province of 
West New Jersey, in America." 3 This remarkably liberal 
institution was drawn up in England, dated March 3, 
1676-7, and was signed by one hundred and fifty-one per- 
sons, among whom were Penn, Laurie, Lucas, Warner, Byl- 
inge, Olive, and Jennings, all greatly interested in New 
fersey history. The Concessions partake of the nature of 
in agreement between the intending settlers and the English 
Droprietors, and they appear to have been signed by Byllinge 
md his representatives, by the new purchasing proprietors, 
md by those about to sail for the colony. 

The Concessions provided for the division of the country 
nto tenths, and each tenth in turn into ten proprietaries, 
naking one hundred proprietaries for the whole province, 
ind determined the amounts of land which should be given 
:o new settlers, tracts which were much smaller than those 
we have seen were granted to the settlers in East Jersey 
.inder the Concessions of 1665. They further provided for a 
:emporary and permanent government by officers elected by 
:he people. The temporary government was composed of 
:ommissioners elected by " the proprietors, Freeholders and 
[nhabitants" of each of the tenths, who were to govern and 
Drder the affairs of the province for the good and welfare of 
:he people. The commissioners were to be elected by ballot : 

" And the said Elections shall be made and distinguished by balloting 
Trunks, to avoid noise and confusion, and not by Voices, holding up of 
the Hands, or otherwise howsoever." * 

1 See The Surveyors' Association of West New Jersey, 1 18-144. 
A 7 . /. Col Archives, I, 225, 275. 

; Learning and Spicer, 382-411 ; N. J. Archives, I, 240 ff; Smith, New 
fersey, 521 ff. 
4 Article III. 



246 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

These commissioners were to continue to be elected by annual 
elections until " distinctions of tribes" occur, and then there 
was to be a " General, Free and Supream Assembly" ( 
posed of one member from each of the one hundred proprie- 
taries, elected by the 4 ' inhabitants, freeholders, and pro] 
tors." 

The West Jersey Concessions of 1677 were more liberal 
to the settlers than were the Fundamental Constitutions of 
East Jersey of 1683. The assembly according to the latter 
was made up of two houses, one of which was com]) 
solely of those holding definite proprietary interests in the 
province ; while in West Jersey the proprietors did not retain 
to themselves any such share in legislation ; for in referr 
to the suffrage the three words, inhabitants, freeholders, and 
proprietors, are used, and no attempt is made to vest with 
superior political privileges those who hold title to the unoc- 
cupied land. The humblest freeholder and the greatest pro- 
prietor are on a political equality and each may in orderly 
fashion cast his vote into the " balloting trunk." The repre- 
sentatives thus elected were called the " trustees" of the 
people; they were directly responsible to their constitiu 
who had the power to instruct them upon public measi; 
and they were to be paid by the people of their several dis- 
tricts, that thereby each " may be known to be the Servant 
of the People." 

This elective system was not set in operation until 1681. 
when Samuel Tennings, deputy governor under Byllinge, 
called an assembly, which soon showed itself stronger than 
the governor. Byllinge, under his second grant from the 
Duke of York of 1680, was claiming sole political auth 
of the province, and therefore the newly elected representa- 
tives, fearing perhaps the withdrawal of the old Concessi 
drew up a formal set of conditions, 1 and refused to rev 
nize Jennings as governor until he had accepted these fir 
mentals. This agreement provided for annual asseml 
elected by the " free people" of the province; it took from 
the governor any veto upon acts of the assembly, compelling 
him to accept all acts passed by them ; it forbade the gove; 

1 Learning and Spicer, 423-425. 



The Suffrage in New Jersey. 247 

to pass any law without the general assembly, and if he did 
so, he should be esteemed an enemy of the free people of the 
province and the law should be void; it made all offices 
elective or appointive by the assembly ; it granted liberty of 
conscience, and no one was to be rendered incapable of hold- 
ing office on account of faith ; finally, this compact prohibited 
the raising of any tax by the governor. 

After this first assembly, annual elections took place with 
considerable, if not complete, regularity until the cession to 
the Crown in 1702. 1 These assemblies exercised very broad 
powers. They elected the councillors, justices of the peace, 
land commissioners, constables, and other inferior officers; 
and in three years, 1683, 1684, 1685, even elected their gov- 
ernor, and compelled him to take an oath to observe the es- 
tablished constitution of the province. 2 This was self-gov- 
ernment in practically complete form. The freeholders 3 
elected the members of assembly, and the assembly elected 
all other provincial officers, while town officers were occasion- 
ally elected or nominated by the localities. 4 The tenths re- 
mained the unit of representation until 1694, when the 
county was substituted, Burlington and Gloucester counties 
sending twenty representatives each, Salem ten, and Cape 
May five. In 1699 this number of fifty-five representatives 
was found " burdensome and superfluous," and accordingly 
the numbers were changed to ten for Burlington and Glou- 
cester counties, five for Salem and three for Cape May, all 
of whom were to be "sufficient freeholders." But in 1701 
the old numbers were once more adopted. 5 It is not at all 
surprising that the number of representatives was felt to be 
too great, for an almanac of the time estimates that West 

1 Smith, New Jersey, 154; but Learning and Spicer give no laws be- 
tween 1685 and 1692. 

2 Ibid., 164, 189, 190. 

3 By a law passed at the session of September 26-28, 1682, it was pro- 
vided that elections for assemblymen should be by the " freeholders ;" 
while the two other terms, " inhabitants" and " proprietors" are omitted 
from the clause, and were not reinstated thereafter (Learning and 
Spicer, 455-6). 

* Learning and Spicer, 454, 494, 496. 
'Ibid., 533, 567, 581. 



248 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

Jersey contained only eight hundred and thirty-two t 
holders; 1 thus giving one representative to every fir 
voters. 

Throughout the whole period of separate organization, the 
suffrage in West Jersey was exercised by those holding land, 
but beyond the simple word " freeholder" as used in the 
laws, no further qualification or explanation was given ; and 
apparently no disputes occurred which might create the ne- 
cessity for a clearer definition of terms. 

After years of negotiations, the transfer of the Jers^ 
the Crown was accomplished in 1702. As early as the 
1699 the proprietors had offered to surrender their govern- 
mental rights to the Crown, but they demanded many con- 
ditions and guarantees. Again in 1701 the proprietors of 
two sections united in framing the conditions upon which they 
would yield to the king; and among the guarantees which 
they asked was one which gave the model for the later repre- 
sentative system of the royal province of New Jersey. I 
and West Jersey should be united, and a single assembh 
both sections should meet alternately at Perth Amboy and 
Burlington. This assembly, the proprietors sugge- 
should be composed of thirty-six members : two elected by 
the " inhabitants householders" of Perth Amboy, two by 
those of Burlington, sixteen by the " freeholders" of East 
Jersey, and the same number by the freeholders of V 
Jersey; and membership in the assembly was to be limited 
to those possessing over one thousand acres of land, and the 
right of suffrage outside the two towns to those possessing 
a freehold of one hundred acres. 2 The proprietors further 
asked for a confirmation of their rights to the soil and quit- 
rents, the right to appoint the first governor, religious lib 
for the inhabitants, the regular establishment of courts, and 
other privileges. But shortly after this the Board of Trade 
questioned the right of the Duke of York to alienate his 
rights in government, and advised the king to appoint a 
governor for the provinces without making terms with the 
existing proprietors. 3 The following spring the propm 

1 N. J. Archives, II, 305. 

= Learning and Spicer, 588, 591-3, 599- 

1 Ibid., 603-9. 



The Suffrage in New Jersey. 249 

surrendered their political powers in both provinces to the 
queen without restriction or qualification. 

After the surrender of the Jerseys to the Crown, we must 
00k for the next constitutional expression in the governor's 
:ommission and instructions. Lord Cornbury had already 
Deen appointed governor of New York, and in the fall of 
1702 he was commissioned as governor over the neighboring 
province of New Jersey. His commission 1 and instruc- 
tions 2 show the influence of the demands made by the pro- 
orietors, and granted almost everything which they desired. 
The assembly was not so large as the proprietors had wished, 
3Ut it was formed upon the plan suggested by them, and the 
qualifications both of members of the assembly and of voters 
were similar to those given in the petition of the proprietors. 

The assembly was to be composed of twenty- four mem- 
bers, ten of whom were chosen by the freeholders of East 
Jersey and ten by the freeholders of West Jersey, two by the 
" inhabitants householders" of Perth Amboy and two by 
those of Burlington. 3 No one could act as an elector unless 
he possessed one hundred acres of land in the section (East 
or West) in which he desired to vote, nor serve in the assem- 
bly unless he held one thousand acres in the section. It will 
be seen that the new organization acted in two ways : en- 

1 December 5, 1702 ; Learning and Spicer, 647-656 ; Smith, History of 
New Jersey, 220-230. 

2 November 16, 1702; Learning and Spicer, 610-646; Smith, History 
of New Jersey, 230-261. 

3 The extension of the suffrage in Burlington and Perth Amboy was 
one of the requests of the proprietors' petition, and was one of the pro- 
visions of the proposed fundamentals of 1683 in East Jersey. In the 
town charters (Newark, 1666; Bergen, 1668; Woodbridge, 1669; Mon- 
mouth, 1672) the word freeholders is always used (see charters in N. J. 
Hist. Soc. Coll., I, 183, 184, 186; Learning and Spicer, 663-4). In the 
legislation concerning towns sometimes the word freeholder is used 
(Laws of May 26 and November 3, 1668) ; sometimes the word " in- 
habitant" (Ch. VIII of East Jersey Laws of 1686) ; sometimes the word 
"town" (East Jersey Laws, 1693, Ch. VIII, 1698-9, Ch. V). In Bur- 
lington (West Jersey Laws, Ch. XIII of 1693) local matters were deter- 
mined by " actual inhabitants who enjoy the fee simple of a house and 
land therein." In all these there is no reference to " inhabitants house- 
holders." 



250 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

larging the suffrage in the towns by allowing all inhabiting 
householders to vote, and limiting the suffrage in the coun- 
try by substituting the new provision of one hundred a 
in freehold for the indefinite term " freeholder," unqualified 
as to amount. No exact figures have been obtained showing 
the effect of the new qualifications, but there is no doubt that 
they were very unpopular, both on account of the restriction 
upon members of the assembly and upon voters in the 
country. 1 

Governor Cornbury arrived in New York in May, 1702. 
but his commission and instructions as governor of : 
Jersey did not reach him until the end of July, 1703. 2 
Within a few days after the receipt of these papers, the gov- 
ernor visited New Jersey, and before a month had passed 
he had issued his writs for the election of members of assem- 
bly. 3 Some inconvenience and injustice were brought on in 
this first election under the royal government by the 01 
sion in the governor's instructions of any districting scheme, 
and accordingly the ten representatives from the two divi- 
sions of the province were elected at large, and the polls were 
held in one place, compelling some voters to travel over a 
hundred miles to the voting place. 4 If one were to bel: 
all of Colonel Quarry's accounts to the Board of Trade, there 
was not a little corruption and undue influence at the p 
of this first election. Surely no modern election expert could 
do better than to return as elected one who received only 
forty-two votes out of over four hundred ; and the undefined 
powers of the sheriff of those days permitted him to adjourn 
the election and compel " several hundred of substantial 
housekeepers to sleep out of doors in an inclement seaso: 
the year" while waiting for their turn to vote. 5 

The assembly, meeting in November. 1703, sooi 
journed till May, 1704, and in the fall a new election took 

X N. J. Archives, III, 6, 28, 71, 84; N. J. Hist. Soc. Coll.. V, 40. 
MS. Board of Trade Journals in Penna. Historical Society Lib- 
November 20, 1705. 

2 Ibid., II, 543, note. 

*Ibid., Ill, 5. 

•Ibid., Ill, 16, 28; XIII, 306. 

5 Ibid., Ill, 15. 



The Suffrage in New Jersey. 251 

place. The members of the new assembly at once took up 
the consideration of the question of suffrage and elections. 
The governor had already written to the Board of Trade, 1 
giving three objections to the qualifications as fixed in his 
instructions: that some were chosen to the assembly, but 
could not serve because they did not have one thousand acres 
of land, although possessing more than that value in land and 
goods; that some of those possessing the required amounts 
of land had not twenty shillings in money, " drive noe trade, 
and can neither read nor write, nay they can not answer a 
question that is asked them;" and that the instructions were 
faulty in not providing for elections in the counties instead 
of in the two divisions at large. Thus the governor pointed 
the way towards a more liberal policy, holding that property 
in goods was as sufficient a test of a man's interest in the 
state as was real estate, and even hinting that land itself was 
of little value as a suffrage qualification if the elector or 
elected was unable to read or write. 

While the governor thus showed himself in favor of a 
personal property qualification as well as a landed require- 
ment, the other opponents of the proprietary interest in the 
province were urging that the heavy land qualifications were 
" an infringement of the naturall right of the other Inhabi- 
tants and tend to enslave them." 2 Thus governor and anti- 
proprietary party acted in harmony, and when the second 
assembly met, in November, 1704, they excluded three per- 
sons whose qualifications were not clearly shown, and then 
by a bare majority passed a new law entitled " An Act for 
altering the present Constitution, and Regulating the Elec- 
tion of Representatives to serve in general Assembly in this 
Province." 8 I have never seen a copy of this law, but it is 
frequently referred to in the correspondence of the day, in 
public discussions, and in the journals of the Board of Trade, 
and from these sources the two principal features of the act 
are obtained. These features were, first, the repeal of the 

'N. J. Archives, III, 28. 

2 Ibid., 37. 

3 Ibid., 72; 88; the act is given by title only in Bradford's Laws 
f edition of 1717), 5. 



252 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

clause of the governor's instructions requiring voters to pos- 
sess one hundred acres, and members of assembly one thou- 
sand acres, and substituting for that provision the old vague 
term " freeholder" without any additional qualification; and 
secondly, the introduction of the governor's favorite tin 
of the equality of land and personal property as the 1 
for political qualifications. 1 The exact method by which 
equality of the two forms of property was obtained is 
stated in any of the documents of the period. 

The new law attracted attention immediately botli in 
Jersey and in England. The governor wrote to the B< 
of Trade that it would be " more advantageous to the 
Queen's service and the good of the country" than the old 
method ; 2 and three of the proprietors in England also me 
rialized the Board, protesting against the high requirement- 
of Cornbury's instructions and asking that all freehol 
might have a share in elections. 3 The Board admitted 
of these petitioners personally to its meetings, and upon their 
advice sent to the queen the draft of new instructions 
the governor. 4 On May 3, 1705, the new instruction 
approved by the queen in council. 5 It was a virtual com- 
promise of the suffrage question. The desire of the more 
popular party that all freeholders should be permitted to \ 
was not granted, but the governor's proposal that personal 
property be accepted in lieu of land was incorporated, and 
the clause was so worded that any freeholder could vote 
had 

" 100 Acres of Land of an Estate of Freehold in his own right within 
the County for which he shall so Vote, or a personal Estate in M 
Goods and Chattels to the Value of £50 Sterling." 

1 See Archives, III, 17, 84, 86-95 ; 126; MS. Board of Trade Jourttals, 
April 13, 1705, Vol. 17, 357-8; November 20, 1705, Vol. 18, 108, no. 
1 14-5, 120; Learning and Spicer, 657-660; N. J. Hist. Soc. Coll. V. 

The act was subsequently disallowed by the queen ; see Bradford's 
Laws (edition of 1732), 7. 

2 Archives, III, 71. 

3 Ibid., 84. 

*MS. Board of Trade Journals. April 13 and 16, 1705, Vol. r 
5 Archives, III, 96-98. 



The Suffrage in New Jersey. 253 

It further gave the suffrage to the inhabiting householders 
of Salem, Burlington, and Perth Amboy, and changed the 
method of election of the assemblymen from the general 
ticket plan to a local election of two representatives for each 
county and two from each of the three towns. 

But while the authorities in England were determining 
upon revising Cornbury's instructions and admitting smaller 
freeholders to the suffrage, action in opposition to the new 
law was taken by the West Jersey proprietors. On April 16, 
1705, some of the English proprietors had spoken to the 
Board of Trade in favor of the new provisions, but on the 
succeeding day a protest was signed by nineteen of the pro- 
prietors of West Jersey against any extension of popular 
powers. These proprietors had been largely responsible for 
the clause in Cornbury's instructions which had required 
such large amounts of freehold for voting and holding seats 
in the assembly, 1 and undoubtedly the restriction would work 
in their interest. It was but natural, therefore, that they 
should object to a change in qualifications which would 
throw open these political privileges to irresponsible inhabi- 
tants. In their protest they give most explicit expression of 
their theories of government. 

The proprietors urged 2 that the governor and assembly 
had no right to alter the qualifications established by the gov- 
ernor's instructions, but that these provisions were to be a 
" standing and unalterable" part of the constitution. They 
were, furthermore, perfectly in accord with the constitution 
of England, " where the electors of the knights of shires 
must have a certain fixed freehold, and the elected are gen- 
erally the principal landed men of their respective county's." 
The new broad suffrage qualifications, too, were inexpe- 
dient, " for certainly those persons are fittest to be trusted 
with choosing and being legislators, who have a fixed val- 
uable and permanent interest in lands, and must stand and 
fall with their country." " But money is an uncertain inter- 

x It has already been noted that the qualifications set down in Corn- 
bury's instructions were copied from the suggestions of the proprietors 
at the time of surrender. See also N. J. Archives, III, 139. 

2 Learning and Spicer, 657-660 ; TV. /. Archives, III, 86-95. There are 
important differences between these two copies of the protest. 



254 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

est, and if it be admitted a qualification equal to land. 
Assembly may be packed of strangers and beggars, who will 
have little regard to the good of the country, from wh< 
they can remove at pleasure, and may oppress the landed 
men with heavy taxes." And finally, the protest expresses 
the alarms of the proprietors that the " Alteration now n 
was intended to put the election of Representatives into 
meanest of the people who being impatient of any Supei 
will never fail to choose such from amongst themselves 
may oppose us, and destroy our Rights." 

Although this paper is dated the 17th of April, 1705, it 
was not received by the Board of Trade until the follow 
September, 1 the delay being caused, perhaps, by the difrk 
of obtaining signatures to the petition, for the propriet 
were scattered through England and Scotland. The d< 
was costly to the proprietors, and in May the queen sent 
new instruction to Cornbury, permitting him to extend the 
suffrage to all freeholders who possessed either one hund 
acres of land or fifty pounds personal estate. In November. 
1705, the subject again came up for consideration in 
Board of Trade, and that indefatigable colonial agit: 
Colonel Quarry, was asked for his advice. 2 Others of 
proprietors were called in, 3 and in the following Febrr. 
1705-6, the Board wrote to Cornbury that they had 
objections to the bill passed in November, 1704, except that 
it did not state the quantity of acres necessary to qualify 
electors and elected, 4 and they refer him to the new insti 
tion recently sent to him for guidance. 

After much more correspondence upon the subject, fa 
tenor of the instructions was at last carried out by a law 
passed at a session of the legislature in the spring of 1; 
during Governor Lovelace's short administration. This 
gave definite legal form to the additional instruction sent 
Governor Cornbury in May, 1705. It provided that elec 
in the counties and members of the assembly should be 1 
holders; electors possessing at least one hundred acre- 

*N. /. Archives, III, 86. 

3 MS. Board of Trade Journals, November 20. 1705, Vol. 18, 108. 

'Ibid., no, 1 14-5, 120. 

*N. J. Archives, III, 126. 



The Suffrage in New Jersey. 255 

and or fifty pounds value of personal and real estate; and 
issemblymen one thousand acres of land or five hundred 
xwnds value in lands and personal property. 1 This law 
eferred only to voters in the counties, and did not mention 
he qualifications for town residents ; but in the instructions 
the governors down to and including Governor Franklin, 
n 1762, the town suffrage is extended to " inhabitants house- 
lolders." No further change in the suffrage for the provin- 
:ial assembly was made from 1709 down to the Revolution. 
Householders in the two towns of Perth x\mboy and Bur- 
lington 2 and freeholders in the counties as stated above 
exercised the suffrage privilege. The qualifications were un- 
doubtedly liberal in 1709, but as the population of the prov- 
nce became more dense and a non-landholding class arose, 
jolitical theories changed also. One of the first results of 
:he revolutionary spirit was the demand for the extension of 
the suffrage, 3 and it was not long before this was accom- 
plished. 

As one passes from the view of the provincial organization 
to the study of local government, an extension of the suffrage 
is noticeable. Thus, in Massachusetts and Connecticut the 
suffrage was much broader in town elections than in the 
:olonial elections, and other colonies as well as old England 
show the same principle. New Jersey was no exception to 
this practice. The earliest legislation concerning town activ- 
ity placed the control of local affairs in the hands of the 
freeholders, but after the cession of the provinces to the 
Crown a more liberal policy is apparent. An act of 1709 4 
provided that poor officers should be elected in town meet- 
ings; and in 1709-10 5 the representative system of county 

Bradford's Laws (ed. of 1717), 5. 

2 For a number of years Salem also had separate representation in the 
Assembly, but by new instructions to Governor Burnet in 1727, Salem 
lost its representatives and was united" with Salem county (N. J. Ar- 
chives, XIV, 336-7). 

3 See Extracts from the Journal of Proceedings of the Provincial Con- 
gress of New Jersey, Trenton, May, June, and August, 1775. Burling- 
ton, Isaac Collins, 1775. Reprint by Joseph Sailer, Woodbury, N. J., 
^35; pp. 75, 142, 228. 

Bradford's Laws (ed. of 1717), 31. 

S N. J. Archives, XIII, 398, note; Bradford's Laws, 17. 



256 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

government was established, but changed somewhat in 17 14 
By the last act " the Inhabitants of each Town and Precinct' 
within each county were to elect annually two " Freehold- 
ers," and these " chosen Freeholders" should meet with tht 
justices to fix a county tax rate and appoint certain officers. 1 
The term " inhabitant" here used occurs almost continuoush 
from this time in the laws relating to local suffrage, alt 
usually combined with the word " freeholder," the phrasi 
" freeholders and inhabitants" being the most common forn 
down to the Revolution. 2 

This phrase is not one peculiar to New Jersey, for it run.- 
throughout a century of New York legislation, and in tha: 
province, it is believed, was applied only to inhabiting free 
holders? Such was not the interpretation, however, whicl 
was placed upon it in New Jersey. We have already seer 
that the governor's instructions granted the provincial suf 
frage to householders in three towns, and that the act 0: 
1 714, w T hile giving local suffrage to " inhabitants," directed 
that the elected should be " freeholders." An act of 171; 
expressly stated that the electors should be " freeholders anc 
inhabitants, householders," and thereby accepted the Englisr 
legal meaning of the word " inhabitants" as one who hold; 
a house. That there were two forms of suffrage is als< 
recognized by the assembly in laws relating to the importan 
matter of the location of the county seats in new counties, 
providing that the decision of this question should be left t( 
those who were qualified to vote for representatives. Bu 
apart from these several instances, the word inhabitant.* 01 
the phrase freeholder and inhabitant, is always used. 6 

It is quite possible, indeed, that the actual suffrage was no 

1 Bradford's Laws, 7. 

2 Ibid. (1717), 61, 66, acts of January, 1716-17; Nevill's Laws. I. 4* 
act of 1749; Nevill's Laws, II, 345, act of 1760. 

3 See chapter on New York. 

4 County of Cumberland, 1747, Nevill's Laws, I, 361: County 
Sussex, 1753, Nevill's Laws, II, 20. 

5 See Nevill's Laws, II, 19. 

'By the city charters of Burlington and Trenton, households 
permitted to vote in city affairs; N. J. Hist. Soc. Proc, Sec. Ser 
158. 



The Suffrage in New Jersey. 257 

always limited even to householders, but that still less re- 
sponsible persons occasionally voted in town elections. This 
must have been the case, else there would have been no reason 
for the law passed in 1766, which carefully defined the term 
" inhabitant." 1 This act, which must serve as our strongest 
clue to the local suffrage qualifications before the Revolution, 
expressed in clear terms the meaning of the word. It was 
passed " for the better ascertaining what Persons Shall have 
a Right to vote at Town-meetings, and the Elections of the 
Township and Precinct Officers," and it prescribed 

" that no Person or Persons, except in Towns corporate, shall have 
the Privilege to give his or their Voice or Vote at any Town meeting 
. . . unless the Person offering such Vote is a Freeholder, a Tenant 
for Years, or Householder & Resident, in such Township or Precinct ; 
and all Powers given to the Inhabitants of this Colony at their said 
Meetings by any Act or Acts of the General Assembly of this Colony 
shall be understood to extend only to the Freeholders, Tenants for 
Years, or Householders, being Residents in such Township or Precinct, 
and no others ; any Law, Custom or Usage to the contrary thereof in 
anywise notwithstanding." 

It thus appears certain that non- freeholders voted and had 
:he right to vote in local elections in the colonial period ; and 
:hat throughout the whole period of royal government the 
louseholders of two towns (for a time also those of a third) 
lad the right to a share in electing the provincial representa- 
:ives from those towns. The usual statement, therefore, that 
he suffrage in New Jersey was limited to freeholders must 
)e qualified in large measure by the admission of household- 
ers in certain towns for the provincial suffrage, and house- 
lolders throughout the whole colony in local elections. We 
lave seen that from the first years of the royal administration 
in effort was made to extend the suffrage to non- freeholders. 
This movement was unsuccessful so far as the assembly 
uffrage was concerned, but the advice of the governors and 
he public agitation led to the cutting down of the freehold 

x Act of June 28, 1766, "An Act explaining the Right of voting at 
Town-Meetings, and the Elections of Township Officers;" Allinson's 

MWS, 28/. 

17 



258 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

qualification to the lowest degree; for if a man possessed 
any amount, however small, of land in freehold he could 
vote for representatives, if he also owned fifty pounds per- 
sonal property. The local suffrage was still wider ; all free- 
holders, of whatever size holding, could vote ; and the sarm 
privilege was open also to all resident householders. B> 
these provisions the suffrage in New Jersey was place*! 
a broader basis than in the neighboring colony of New York 
while, on the other hand, it was not so liberal as in Pennsyl 



1 The Pennsylvania qualification was fifty acres of land, of whic 
twelve were cleared, or fifty pounds personal estate,* Statutes at Larg< 
II, 212-221, Act of January 12, 1705-6. But in certain local matter 
only freeholders could vote, Statutes at Large, IV, 116, Act of May it 
1729, and Pamphlet Laws, 112, Act of 1771, March 9. 



CHAPTER IX. 

The Suffrage in Delaware. 

A noteworthy fact which becomes apparent in a study of 
le suffrage in the middle colonies is the weakness or total 
Dsence of popular government in those colonies which were 
mnded by the Dutch and Swedes, and in its early develop- 
ment within the English colonies, both northern and south- 
n. That wide territory which later included the colonies 
i New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware, 
is few facts to give to the student of popular political insti- 
itions until after its conquest by the English. During the 
fty years of occupation of the Hudson Valley and the forty 
iars of settlement on the Delaware there is not as much 
Dlitical activity as is to be seen in the first few years of 
le of the spontaneous political organizations of English- 
en. In the insignificant settlements of Maine, in the New 
Hampshire towns, among the one hundred Englishmen at 
lymouth, in the towns of Rhode Island, Connecticut, New 
aven, and on Long Island, political organizations appear 
! surely as the English names and features. 
The search for the conditions of the suffrage in the early 
>ars of the middle colonies is, therefore, largely a search 
>r those occasional and irregular elections through which 
e will of the people may have been expressed. And yet 
is search is not altogether a waste of time, for, if it does 
) more, it will aid in an appreciation of those regular politi- 
1 forms which were later introduced by the English. 1 
The Dutch were the first to settle on the Delaware River, 
here before 1650 they had established three forts. The 
rt at Swaanendael, near Cape Henlopen, however, was de- 

1 It is not intended to draw the inference that there is nothing of value 
the early settlements on the Hudson and the Delaware. There are, 
course, many important social, economic or personal facts in connec- 
n with these settlements, but for the constitutional historian there is 
-en little to describe beyond an arbitrary military government. 

259 



260 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

stroyed by the Indians in 163 1; Fort Beversrede 
insignificant trading station within the present limit- 
Philadelphia, perhaps erected in 1633; an d the third 
near the present Gloucester, New Jersey, was occupied I 
1623 to 1 65 1. After the latter date the Dutch d< 
Fort Nassau in New Jersey, and, moving to the west bank 
of the river, built Fort Casimir, near the present Newca 
Delaware, and within menacing distance of the Swedish I 
Christina. In these early attempts at Dutch occupation 
government appears purely military, and the forts se; 
to protect the few settlers around them and also to fun 
a post for the Indian trade. As late as 1648 Fort Be 
on the Schuylkill had, owing to the encroachments of th< 
Swedes, scarcely land enough for a " little garden." 1 an< 
their trade was similarly hampered by the Swedes. I 
the Dutch conquest of the lands on the South River it 
impossible to find any political organization among th< 
Dutchmen on the Delaware. 

A similar conclusion will be reached regarding the 
lish settlements. Some New T Haven men doubtless cam* 
the Delaware and perhaps occupied land in what is 
Philadelphia; 2 but their occupation was of short dura: 
So, too, the county palatine of Sir Edmund Plowden, in 
eluding the Delaware lands, was never organized by i 
prietor. 3 

Turning from the Dutch and the English, then 
may examine the political conditions in the Swedish sc 
ments. With the intrigues for the formation of the S 
South Company w T e are not here concerned, 4 but its charte 
granted in 1626, shows a typical seventeenth century tradin 
company, 5 with no recognition of the political rights of tl 

1 Pa. Archives, Second Series, VII, 467. 

2 1641-2; Hazard, Annals, 59-64; Pa. Archives, Sec. Series VI 
Brodhead, Hist, of N. Y., I, 322; Scharf and Westcott. Hit 
Philadelphia, I, 67. 

3 Hazard, Historical Collections, I, 160-174; Hazard. Annals, 36-J 
108-112. 

4 See Jameson, William Usselinx. 

5 Jameson, Usselinx. 114-117; Hazard, Annals. 16-20: A' 
Doc. XII, 7-15 



The Suffrage in Delaware. 261 

colonists. An extension of time was granted to this com- 
pany in 1633, 1 and in 1638 some Swedish settlers arrived 
on the South River and settled within the present limits of 
Wilmington, Delaware. The early organization of these 
Swedes is not clearly shown in the few existing documents 
of this period, but the control of affairs in the colony was 
apparently vested solely in a governor. By 1642 two such 
governors had been displaced and a third appointed. 2 The 
instructions and commission of the latter, John Printz, do 
not show any formal sharing of authority between the gov- 
ernor and the people, although the governor is cautioned to 
conduct himself so that he may be able to answer for it 
before God, the Queen, " and every brave Swede." a Down 
to the close of the Swedish rule there is apparently no change 
from the arbitrary rule of the company's governors, and no 
participation on the part of the settlers in the government of 
the colony. 

In September, 1655, Governor Stuyvesant, from New 
Amsterdam, entered the South River with a force of seven 
hundred men, a greater number, perhaps, than the entire 
Swedish population on the river. By the terms of the capitu- 
lation, which followed as a matter of course upon this mili- 
tary display, those Swedes desiring to remain and taking 
an oath of allegiance to the Dutch government were to be 
guaranteed their lives, property, and their religion. 4 A vice- 
director was appointed by Stuyvesant to take charge of the 
Delaware settlements, receiving power to " keep order, do 
justice, and administer it either in civil or military cases;" 
but he should be assisted by a council composed of two named 
persons, and two sergeants in the trial of military offences, 
or " two most suitable freemen" in civil cases. 5 

Under the Dutch rule there are indications of occasional 



Hazard, 30, 34; Jameson, Usselinx, 161. 

'Ibid., Annals, 57, 59, 62. 

s Ibid., 63; Hazard, Register of Penna., IV, 200. 

* Ibid., Annals, 185-190; Pa. Archives, Sec. Series, VII, 483-487; 
-V. Y. Col. Doc, I, 607-8; XII, 102-106. 

5 Hazard, 205-206; Pa, Archives, Sec. Series, VII, 490-493; A r . Y. 
Col. Doc, XII, 113. 



262 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

popular participation in the colony's affairs. Thus, as early 
as 1656 a local court was established for the Swedes, com- 
posed of a sheriff (schout) and commissaries, 1 and evidently 
modelled after similar courts erected in the Dutch towns of 
New Netherlands '1 hese officials were chosen by Stir 
sant, but there appears to have been some popular act 
concerning the selection. 3 The friendly attitude of Stir 
sant towards the Swedes did not meet with the approval of 
the West India Company, and in 1661, after about five yi 
had passed, the Swedish sheriff was discharged. 4 

In the meantime the Dutch vice-director and his council- 
lors had been holding court at Fort Casimir, directing mili- 
tary affairs, deciding civil and criminal cases, and occasion- 
ally calling in the inhabitants to give assistance. 5 On 
November 8, 1656, the " whole community" appeared, and 
selected four persons from whom the vice-director later chose 
two proper persons as inspectors of tobacco. After this elec- 
tion the fencing of their lands was advised by the vice- 
director, and the community proceeded to elect two persons 
to serve as overseers and surveyors of fences. Later, the 
building of a bridge and the cutting of palisades for the fort 

1 N. Y. Col. Doc, XII, 151. This court met at Tinicum Island (ibid. 
159), and its jurisdiction was recognized by the vice-director's court at 
Fort Casimir. 

2 Amer. Hist. Rev., VI, 6-9; Pa. Archives, Sec. Series, VII, 5. 
Military officers were also appointed among the Swedes. The \ 
India Company thought this dangerous, but Stuyvesant wrote, " We have 
thought the most suitable [form of government] would be a lenient 
method of governing them and proceeding with them, to win their h 
and divert their thoughts from a hard and tyrannical form of goi 
ment, and considering this we granted to the Swedish nation, at the 
quest, some officers, that in time of necessity, against the savage- 
other enemies, in case of defence, they might keep order, but we 
them no written document or commission, much less were any arms dis 
tributed among them;" Pa. Arch., Sec. Series, VII, 571. 

3 Compare Pa. Arch., Sec. Series, VII, 511. with N. Y. Col. Doc, XII 

151. 

4 AT. Y. Col. Doc, XII, 233, 271, 338, 345; Pa- Archives, Sec. Series. 

VII, 555- 

8 See Minutes of Administration of Jean Paul Jacquet, N. Y. Col. 
Doc, XII, 133-162. 



The Suffrage in Delaware. 263 

were agreed upon. 1 A similar meeting was held about two 
months later, on January 10, 1657, at which the attention 
3f the inhabitants was drawn to the high prices which some 
traders had been giving to the Indians for skins ; and after- 
wards the community set a fixed price in wampum upon furs, 
and agreed mutually not to give more than this amount; 
and those violating the promise were to be considered per- 
jurers. 2 In these two meetings the people took a part in 
election and in legislation in a way which does not differ 
materially from the New England town meeting, except 
that the meetings were called at irregular intervals, records 
of these two meetings alone remaining, and they did not, 
consequently, form an integral part of the local govern- 
ment. 3 

Another change in the control of the Delaware settlements 
was under consideration while these events were happening. 
In December, 1656, the Directors of the Dutch West India 
Company informed Stuyvesant that the company had ceded 
Fort Casimir, thereafter to be called New Amstel, and the 
land below it to the mouth of the river to the city of Amster- 
dam, and that the city would soon take steps to enlarge the 
colony and send over a director to govern it. 4 To encourage 
emigration to the new colony, the city published a set of con- 
ditions under which settlers could enter the colony. 5 In 
addition to many economic inducements, these conditions 
also promised very favorable political privileges; there 
should be a " schout" or " head of justice" appointed by the 
director at New Amsterdam, three burgomasters appointed 

X AT. Y. Col Doc, XII, 154-5. 
'Ibid., 157. 

3 The government of the Company's colony at Altona (Wilmington) 
was mainly under the control of the vice-director. On April 28, 1660, 
an inhabitant came before this officer and said, " that we ought to make 
new Commissaries every year, pursuant to the custom of Holland;" he 
inquired " whether he and other freemen were to be treated forever as 
boys," and declared " that they should not always be ruled by such 
clowns," etc. (N. Y. Col. Doc, XII, 308.) 

4 AT. Y. Col. Doc, XII, 131-33. 

5 Laws of New Netherlands, 239-248, 269-288 ; N. Y. Col. Doc, I, 630- 
636; Hazard, Annals, 220 ff. 



264 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

by the common burghers from among the " honestest, fittest 
and richest," and five or seven schepens (magistrates) se- 
lected by the director from a double number nominate*, 
the " body of the burghers." l After the colony numb( 
two hundred families, it was to elect a common council, and 
the popular elections were to give place to a close corpora- 
tion. 

The officers were chosen by the people for the first time 
in 1657, 2 and subsequently there must have been other < 
tions, for in June, 1660, we learn of a meeting of the " 
munity," and an election of commissaries ; 3 and in 1 1 
at the surrender of the New Amstel authorities to the Eng- 
lish, a number of " burgomasters" signed the articles of 
capitulation for themselves and " all the Dutch and Swedes 
inhabiting in Delaware Bay and Delaware River/' 4 
promises of free land, free seed corn, exemption from ta 
and the grant of political power did not make the New 
Amstel colony a success. The colonists deserted and went 
to neighboring English settlements, and the city was un- 
able to get any return for its invested capital. 5 Con- 
of authority also occurred between the representatives of the 
city of Amsterdam and those of the West India Compa' 
and in addition to these internal difficulties, the English in 
Maryland claimed the whole territory and threatened to use 
force against the occupants. 7 

Further inducements to settlers were offered by the city 
in 1 661 and 1663 by throwing open the trade with the 
colony to all persons, by promising independence of the > 
Amsterdam authorities, and by giving greater freedom in 
local affairs. 8 This policy of local independence did not con- 
form to Stuyvesant's ideas of government. He thought it 

1 One election is noted by Hazard, Annals, 239; N. Y. Col. Do, 

319. 

- Hazard, Annals, 239. 

3 N. Y. Col. Doc, XII, 319- 

4 Pa. Archives, Sec. Series, V, 544. 

>N. Y. Col. Doc, II, 202; XII, 271, 408. 

"Ibid., XII, 197-199, 232-4, 287, 314, 326, 408, etc. 

"Ibid., 261. 

* Ibid., II, 173-^75- ^aws of New Netherlands, 388, 44/- 



The Suffrage in Delaware. 265 

would encourage the officials in the city's colony in their 
past usurpations of authority; further, it would lead the 
other villages and colonies to demand like privilege, and, 
under the early exemptions, these could not be denied, for 
each colony was to possess as great privileges as any single 
one obtained. 1 

Shortly after this the West India Company transferred to 
the city of Amsterdam all its possessions on the South River, 
and in October, 1663, Stuyvesant at New Amsterdam signed 
the deed of cession. 2 The English conquest of 1664 pre- 
vented a further development of the city's schemes of coloni- 
zation. Amsterdam, from the first, had offered greater 
inducements to settlers than those advertised by the West 
India Company. The colony was treated as a business 
venture, for the success of which all means must be used. 
In addition to granting religious liberty, trade privileges, and 
free land, a further promise of political privileges was made ; 
and as the failure of the colony became apparent, the con- 
cessions to settlers were made more extensive. But neither 
a commercial company nor a single city could secure the 
colony against foreign attack, and the States-General of the 
Netherlands would not give the necessary protection. 

After New Amsterdam had surrendered to the English 
in 1664, Sir Robert Carre was sent to the Delaware to re- 
duce the Dutch settlements on that river. The terms of 
surrender were similar to those granted to the inhabitants 
of New Amsterdam and the Hudson Valley. 3 The Dutch 
and Swedes had their property rights secured to them ; they 
were permitted to leave the region within six months, and 
if remaining and taking the oath of allegiance, they were 
entitled to enjoy commercial and religious liberty, and their 
officers and magistrates were to " exercise their Customary 
Power in Adminis on of Justice w th in their precincts, for 
Six Months or until his Ma ties pleasure" be known. 4 

l N. Y. Col Doc, XII, 374. 

2 Ibid., II, 199 ; XII, 449. For reasons for this transfer see N. Y. Col 
Doc, II, 201 ; XII, 440-442, and Brodhead, Hist, of N. Y., I, 714-716. 

'Ibid., Ill, 71-73; Pa. Arch., Sec. Series, V, 544; Hazard, Annals, 
364. 

4 Ibid. 



266 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

For several years after this surrender, a dual form of 
government existed within the Delaware settlements; an 
English military commander with a force of twenty soldiers 
possessed superior authority on the River ; but the civil gov- 
ernment in the respective plantations was continued, and 
only in cases of dispute was the commander to call to 
assistance five named inhabitants to act as councillors. The 
council, in which the commander had a double vote in case 
of a tie, could decide civil suits, give advice concerning the 
Indian trade, and supervise the military protection of the 
several plantations. 1 But the commander did not often inter- 
fere with the Dutch officers, and as late as 1670 and 1671 
we find references to sellouts and commissaries, who have 
the duties of the old Dutch officers. 2 

In the spring of 1665 Col. Nicholls had issued his code of 
laws known as the " Duke's Laws," but the operation of 
these was limited for a time to Long Island, and they v. 
only gradually extended to the Delaware lands, where I 
were never fully in force. In 1668 the first step towards the 
establishment of the laws was taken, 3 and in 1671 the militia 
provisions of the Laws were extended to the Delaware. 4 The 
following year, the governor at New York, in commissioning 
a justice of the peace for the Delaware lands, directed hir 
observe the laws established for the Duke's territories, 5 and 
at last the final step in the establishment of English laws on 
the Delaware came by an order from Governor Andros, dated 
September 22, 1676. 6 It provided 

" 1. That the booke of lawes Established by his Royall Highnesse. and 
practiced in New Yorke, Long Island, and Dependences bee likewis 
force, and practiced in this River and Precincts, Except the Con-t 
Courts, Country Rates, and some other things peculiar to Long Island, 
and the Millitia as now Ordered to remaine in the King, but that a I 
stable in each place bee yearely chosen for the Preservacon of his 
Peace with all other Power as directed by the law." 

1 N. Y. Col. Doc, XII, 461-2; Pa. Arch., Sec. Series. VII. 7^ 
2 Hazard, Annals, 380, 383. 
*N. Y. Col. Doc. XII, 462. 

4 Ibid., 487. 

5 Ibid., 495- 

6 Ibid., 561-63; Pa. Archives, Sec. Series, VII, 783-785. 



The Suffrage in Delaware. 267 

The order recognized three courts, at Whorekill, Newcastle, 
and Upland, to be composed of justices of the peace, having 
limited criminal and civil jurisdiction, and possessing the 
power to make by-laws for their respective territories, not 
repugnant to the laws of the government. Taxes could not 
be levied, except in extraordinary cases, without the consent 
of the governor. A sheriff was to be appointed by the gov- 
ernor for the whole Delaware region. 

The democratic features of the laws as they were put in 
force in Long Island were not introduced by this order into 
the Delaware settlements. 1 There were no town meetings 
or constables' courts, and it is believed that there were no 
regular popular elections. The order of Andros did, indeed, 
provide for the election of constables, but these officials, as 
well as other local officers, were actually appointed by the 
courts. The three courts furnish the most distinctive feature 
of political organization on the Delaware down to Penn's 
time, and they gave a model for the later county government 
of Pennsylvania and Delaware, Before the English con- 
quest, there had been three Dutch local courts on the Dela- 
ware, one for New Amstel (Newcastle), 2 another at Chris- 
tina (later called Altona, now Wilmington), 3 and the third 
near the mouth of the Schuylkill on Tinicum Island. 4 When 
the city of Amsterdam obtained control of the entire Dela- 
ware region it is believed that the separate court at Altona 
was incorporated with that of Newcastle, while a rudimen- 
tary form of government was established for certain new 
plantations near the Cape called the Whorekill settlement 5 
These courts with their schouts and commissaries must 
have been the " inferiour Magistrates" mentioned in the 
articles of capitulation in 1664, and they may have existed 
continuously from that time until the order of September 
22, 1676, formally adopted their organization as the basis 
of government for the river, although the occasional refer- 

1 See Amer. Hist. Rev., VI, 718-723. 

*N. Y. Col. Doc, XII, passim. 

3 Ibid., passim. 

*Ibid., 211, 310. 

* Ibid., 229-230, 450. 



268 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

ences in the records do not furnish absolute proof of their 
continuous action. 1 

An inspection of the records of two of these courts furnishes 
no evidence of popular elections. 2 Both at Newcastle and 
at Upland the court appointed constables, overseers of high- 
ways, under-sheriffs, church-wardens, church-elders, attor- 
neys, viewers of tobacco, vendu-masters, and perhaps other 
officers. 3 The commissions of the justices of the several 
courts were stated to run for one year or until superseded, 
but often a new commission was not issued until considerably 
longer than a year. 4 The courts appear to have been per- 
mitted, like the old Dutch courts, to nominate a list of per- 
sons from whom the governor might choose the new jus- 
tices. 5 In all this political and administrative activity 
the local courts there is nothing to remind one of the town 
meetings and popular elections which were carried on 
under the Duke's laws on Long Island. 6 With the pos- 
sible exception of the town officers of Newcastle, 7 it sei 

*In 1660 we find a record of the Court at Tinicum Island (N. Y. Col. 
Doc, XII, 311), and in 1672 a similar court was being held on the neigh- 
boring mainland at Upland (Chester). It is believed that the latter 
was a continuation of the previous Dutch court, with its place of meet- 
ing changed between 1660-1672, from Tinicum Island to Upland. In 
1669-70, January 25, an officer to preserve the peace was provided for 
Whorekill (N. Y. Col. Doc, XII, 472), and in 1672 there had been in 
existence for some time a schout and commissaries {Ibid., 496). 

2 The records of the court at Upland from 1672 until Penn's occupa- 
tion have been printed in volume seven of the Memoirs of the 1 
Soc. of Penna. A transcript of the Newcastle records, beginning in 
October, 1676, and continuing until 1681, has been made from the orig- 
inals and deposited in the Hist. Soc. of Penna. The copy has been used 
by the writer. 

8 See Newcastle Court Records (Pa. Hist. Soc. copy), I, 54, 74. 109. 
136, 145, 163, 217, 285, 302-3, 460; II, 31, 32, 99, 165-68, 224, 328, 349; 
Upland Court Records, 57, 104, 184, 194. 

4 Newcastle Court Records, I, 3-7, 189-193, 250-252, 416-417: II. 265- 
266 ; Upland Court Records, 37, 165. 

5 Newcastle Court Records, I, 403; N. Y. Col. Doc, XII, 606. 650. 

8 Even the popular election of militia officers was apparently forbidden, 
for the militia was " to remain in the King." (N. Y. Col. Doc, XII. 
561.) 

7 N. Y. Col. Doc. XII, 496. 



The Suffrage in Delazvare. 269 

probable that no elections by the people were held on the 
South River under the government of the Duke of York. 

With the cession of the Delaware lands to Penn the his- 
tory of the lower settlements is for a time overshadowed 
by that of their more prosperous neighbors in Pennsyl- 
vania. It is probable that the local government, both of 
Delaware and Pennsylvania, was largely influenced by the 
previous powers of the three courts on the Delaware, for 
Penn's frames and laws, while singularly explicit regarding 
a general representative system, were almost silent upon 
the subject of local government, and it is quite likely, al- 
though perhaps not demonstrable, that he drew upon the 
existing forms for his county government. 1 

It is not necessary here to review the various suffrage 
provisions of the Pennsylvania legislation from 1682 to 
1702, for the province and the territories were under the 
same government during this time. But jealousies between 
the two sections soon arose, and in 1699 some of the lower 
counties refused to elect representatives ; and during Penn's 
second visit the conflict of interests continued, until in the 
charter of privileges of 1701 he inserted a provision per- 
mitting the legislative separation of the province and terri- 
tories. Renewed contests between the two sections took 
place after the proprietor's departure for England, and in 
1702 the lower counties, as in 1699, neglected to elect rep- 
resentatives under the charter of 1701. 2 This was taken 
by the Pennsylvania delegates to mean a separation, and 
when in 1704 the three counties again asked for representa- 
tion they were refused admission to the Pennsylvania as- 
sembly. 3 From this time, therefore, may be dated the legis- 
lative separation of the " Three Lower Counties" from the 
province. 

^he records during the Duke of York's control at first speak of the 
three " courts," avoiding the word county, even going so far as to de- 
scribe the physical bounds of the courts; but the word county came 
in, either accidentally or intentionally, about 1679 or 1680. {Newcastle 
Court Records, II, 129-130, 188, 199-202; Upland Court Records, 165.) 

2 Votes of Assembly of Penna., I, I, Appendix, xiv-xxv ; Col. Rec. of 
Pa., II, 72-84, 128-140. 

3 Ibid.. I, II, 4. 



270 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

Access to the early laws of Delaware has not been had, 
and the first election law examined is that of 7 George II. 
(1734). 1 This act, entitled " An Act for regulating Elec- 
tions, and ascertaining the Number of the Members of 
Assembly," was passed, as its preamble states, because the 
existing election laws were " uncertain and deficient." It 
provided for an annual assembly composed of at least six 
persons from each county, and stated the qualifications of 
electors and elected in similar form to those of Pennsyl- 
vania. A voter must be ( 1) a natural born subject of Great 
Britain, or have been naturalized in England, in this prov- 
ince, or in Pennsylvania; (2) of the male sex; (3) of 
twenty-one years of age; (4) be a freeholder within this 
government holding fifty acres of land, with twelve acres 
cleared and improved, or be otherwise worth forty pounds 
lawful money; (5) a resident for the term of two years. 
The law imposed a fine of five pounds upon persons voting 
without proper qualification, and a fine of twenty shillings 
upon those neglecting to vote when possessing the qualifi- 
cations, unless detained by sickness or other unavoidable 
accident. Giving or receiving bribes were punishable by 
a fine of five pounds, as was also the offering to serve for 
nothing or less than the legal allowance of representath 
The act required the use of paper ballots except in the case 
of illiterate persons, who were permitted to vote " verbally ;" 
it provided for election inspectors, the giving of certain 
oaths to electors, and for the continuance of the polls from 
day to day until all those present were polled; and it gave 
in full the several oaths of allegiance and adjuration which 
must be taken by members of the assembly. Subsequent 
acts of 1766 3 and 1772 4 slightly changed the mode of 
choosing election inspectors, but the principal features of the 
act of 1734 continued without material change until the 
Revolution. 

1 Printed code of 1741, p. 76; code of 1752, p. 118. 

2 A person so elected was disqualified for office for the year in which 
the election took place. 

8 November 1, 1766, Adams' Laws, I, 429. 

4 June 13, 1772, Adams' Laws, I, 500; made perpetual by act of Sep- 
tember 2, 1775. 



The Suffrage in Delaware. 271 

An idea of a colonial election can be drawn from the 
words of the act of June 13, 1772. The sheriff of each 
county was required to furnish a ballot-box for each hun- 
dred, with the name of the hundred painted on the outside 
of the box. On election day the sheriff delivered these boxes 
to the inspectors for the respective hundreds, who evidently 
sat together in some convenient place in the county town. 
The elector presented his ballot to the inspector of the hun- 
dred in which he dwelt, and the inspector called aloud the 
name of the voter presenting his ballot, and then deposited 
it in the proper box. After the election was completed, and 
it might last several days, the sheriff must open each box 
separately and compare the number of ballots it contained 
with the number of persons who had been announced as 
voting in that hundred. When these were made to tally 
all the ballots were placed in one box and counted by the elec- 
tion clerks. There was a penalty of twenty shillings for vot- 
ing more than once or even offering to do so. 1 

An early act 2 changed the term of sheriffs and coroners 
from three years to one year and provided for the election 
of a double number, from whom the governor should choose 
one to serve, or, if he neglected the duty, at the end of six 
days the person having the highest number of votes was to 
fill the office. The act of 13 George II. 8 shows in its pre- 
amble that in Delaware, as in Pennsylvania, the office of 
sheriff was much sought after. Candidates are said to 
" make it their frequent Practice to engage Persons to vote 
for them, by giving them strong Drink, and using other 
Means, inconsistent with the Design of free Voting at Elec- 
tions; by Means whereof many unguarded Persons are 
drunk and disorderly more particularly at the Time of Elec- 
tions; whereby great Confusions and Mischiefs arise." 
Steps were taken to prevent such evils by disqualifying the 
sheriff for three years after he had served three terms in 
succession ; and by imposing a fine of ten pounds for giving 
any reward or promise of reward, and five pounds for re- 
ceiving any such bribe. 

Adams' Laws, I, 500. 

'Code of 1752, p. 29 (date not given). 

* Code of 1741, p. 108; code of 1752, p. 133. 



272 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

Many of the local officials were appointed by the county 
courts, 1 and in the few cases of election, the qualifications 
of the provincial suffrage are prescribed for local electors. 2 
One exception to this rule existed in the borough suffrage 
ot Wilmington as determined by its charter of X 
1 6, 1739. 3 The borough charter provided for two burgc 
six assistants, one high constable, and one town clen 
whom were to be annually elected by ballot by the inhabi- 
tants. The suffrage was extended to all freeholders am 
those housekeepers who had resided one year in the borough 
and hired a house and ground of the yearly value of at li 
five pounds. The inhabitants were permitted to appoint 
other necessary officers and in town meetings to make c 
venient rules and ordinances, provided they were not repug- 
nant to the laws of the " territories." 4 

Although the Delaware territories had a greatly varied 
history from the Swedish and Dutch settlements dowr 
the Revolution, yet their population was small and economi- 
cally homogeneous. Racial differences existed, but these 
apparently did not influence politics. Thus the suffrage 
question was never a vital one in this province as it was in 
New England or Maryland. For fifty years of the e 
settlements there were no regular elections, and not until 
the act of 1734 was the subject carefully defined; but the 
act of that year remained almost unchanged down to the 
Revolution. In local matters, while the levy court and the 
hundred organization are interesting forms of local govern- 
ment, they do not furnish anything of interest to a stud} 
the suffrage. Delaware's franchise laws followed closely 
those of Pennsylvania, with compulsory voting, and fines 
for neglect, as a most striking innovation. 

1 See acts of 15 Geo. II (code of 1752, pp. 200, 214, 220) ; 25 Geo. II 
(Adams, I, 316) ; November 1, 1766 (ibid., 429) ; November 25. 1775 
(ibid., 544). 

2 Act of 16 Geo. II (code of 1752, p. 231). 

* See The Ordinances of the City of Wilmington, Delaware, to which 
are prefixed the Original Borough Charter and the Acts of the Legis- 
lature, now in force, relating to the City, Wilmington, 1872. 

4 This charter is closely similar to those granted to Chester. Br; 
and Lancaster in Pennsylvania, see post. 296-297. 



CHAPTER X. 
The Suffrage in Pennsylvania. 

Before King Charles's grant to William Penn, the Dela- 
vare lands were described as an " appendage of New York/' 
md while a number of Dutch, Swedish, and English set- 
lers had established themselves upon the soil of the present 
D ennsylvania before Penn's assumption of control, yet they 
lad always been subject to some distant authority, — the 
Swedish governor at Christina, the Dutch director at New 
Amsterdam, or the Duke of York's deputy at New York. 
\mong these early diverse racial elements there were no 
:losely settled towns as in New England, few common in- 
erests, and consequently little common political activity. 
The court at Upland, in existence only a few years before 
D enn's grant, was the most dignified political body, which, 
hroughout the first forty years and more of European set- 
lement, met within the present limits of Pennsylvania. 
D opular suffrage was rarely exercised during this period, 
md never was permanently established. The few instances 
n which it occurred will be found mentioned in the articles 
ipon the colonies of Delaware and New York. 

Penn's charter from the king, therefore, furnishes us with 
i logical starting-point for a view of the suffrage in Pennsyl- 
vania. Within this charter distinct provision is made for 
)opular legislative assemblies in which the inhabitants may 
oin with the proprietor in the making of laws : 

" Wee . . . Doe grant free, full & absolute power, by vertue of these 
resents to him & his heires ... to ordeyne, make, Enact & vnder his 
nd their Seales to publish any Laws whatsoever, for the raising of 
aoney for the publick vse of the said province, or for any other End 
ppertayning either vnto the publick state, peace, or safety of the said 
'ountrey, or vnto the private vtility of perticular persons, according 
nto their best discretions, by and with the advice, assent and appro- 
)acon of the freemen of the said Countrey, or the greater part of them, 
r of their Delegates or Deputies . . ." * 

Charter and Laws of the Province of Pennsylvania, 168 2-1700, 81. 

18 273 



274 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

The proprietor fully approved of this clause of the char- 
ter, and shortly after obtaining the legal title to the land 
he wrote a letter to the inhabitants promising them bi 
powers in self-government : 

"... I hope you will not be troubled at your change, and the k 
choice, for you are now fixed at the mercy of no governor that comes to 
make his fortune great ; you shall be governed by laws of your own 
making, and live a free, and, if you will, a sober and industrious people. 
I shall not usurp the right of any, or oppress his person. God has fur- 
nished me with a better resolution, and has given me his grace to keep 
it. In short, whatever sober and free men can reasonably desire for the 
security and improvement of their own happiness, I shall heartily com- 
ply with, and in five months resolve, if it please God, to see you. . . 

The same faith in popular government is also to be 
in the promise made in Penn's Proposals to Adventtr 
that even the matter of the division of lots and land tr 
shall be left " to the majority of votes among the adven- 
turers." 2 But it was his intention that he should be on the 
ground before the calling of the assemblies, for in his c 
mission to his deputy, Markham, he expressly forbid- 
representative to call the people in assemblies. 3 

In the months immediately following the receipt i 
grant, Penn and his friends were engaged in outlining a 
plan of government for the new colony. After many drafts 4 
a " frame" of government was issued on April 25, 1682, 
comprising 24 numbered sections. 5 The frame enacted that 
" the government of this province shall, according to the 
powers of the patent, consist of the Governor and free 
of the said province; in form of a Provincial Council and 
General Assembly, by whom all laws shall be made, ofrn 
chosen and publick affairs transacted." The council was 
consist of seventy-two members, and the assembly of I 
hundred members elected by the freemen ; but the first 
assembly should be composed of all the freemen. The elec- 

1 Hazard, Annals of Pennsylvania, 502. 
* /&«*., 511. 

3 Charter and Laws, 1682-1700, Appendix, 470. 

4 See Shepperd, Proprietary Government in Pa., 225-250, for a dc 
scription of the extant manuscripts of these frames. 

8 Charter and Laws, 1682-1700, 91-99. 



The Suffrage in Pennsylvania. 275 

ion of councillors and assemblymen was to be by ballot, 
jut the Frame did not give the qualifications of electors. 
This was added in a code of forty numbered sections called 
' The Laws agreed upon in England." 1 It is here that we 
irst find a definition of the word freeman. That the royal 
:harter had used it synonymously with freeholder is proved 
w the fact that the assembly is spoken of in one instance 
is made up of the freemen and in another case as composed 
)f the freeholders. 2 The Frame had used only the word 
freemen, but by the Laws a freeman is declared to be one 
who (a) has purchased one hundred acres of land, or the 
leir of such an one; or (b) who has paid his passage 
icross the Atlantic and taken up one hundred acres at the 
■ent of one penny an acre, and cultivated ten acres thereof; 
)r (c) who has been a servant and becoming free, has taken 
ip fifty acres and cultivated twenty; or (d) who is an 
nhabitant, artificer, or other resident paying scot and lot 
the government. All such freemen could vote for or 
;erve in the Council or Assembly. 

The qualifications in this clause may have been intended 
distinguish between the county and the town suffrage, 
scot and lot is a vague term, but its use here might mean 
i tax paid only in the towns ; so that in the country dis- 
ricts of Pennsylvania where nearly every reputable citizen 
vould be a freeholder the holding of land was to be a requi- 
re to voting; while in 'the towns, where intelligent " ar- 
ificers" might live and pay taxes, but frequently hold no 
and, the qualification of electors was changed to fit their 
:onditions. In some of the other colonies a similar provi- 
sion was made in order to meet the difference between the 
economic conditions of the towns and the country. 3 The 
:lause, however, was never enacted in this form in Pennsyl- 
vania. 

Another of the laws made in England added further re- 
strictions upon the elector by requiring him to be twenty- 
>ne years of age, not convicted of ill-fame or of unsober or 
lishonest conversation, but professing faith in Jesus Christ. 

1 May 5, 1682, Charter and Laivs, 99-103. 

J Compare the phraseology of Lord Baltimore's patent. 

z See N. Y, N. J., Va., etc. 



276 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

When Penn arrived in the province he issued writs for 
the first assembly, not calling all the freemen, but direr 
the " freeholders" of the counties to elect seven repress 
tives for each county. 1 This was a departure from the 
mary assembly of all the freemen which the frame directed 
should be first called, and also at variance with the repre 
sentative organization as laid down in the frame. The 1 
tives of Penn in calling a representative body instead of a 
gathering of all of the freemen do not appear. 

Foremost among the acts of the first assembly appears 
" An Act for Naturalization." 2 This had a marked bear- 
ing upon the suffrage, since it determined the manner in 
which a large number of foreigners might obtain freeman 
ship. It was provided that all foreigners over twenty-one 
years of age holding land in fee should be held as freeme: 
within three months they would solemnly promise allegi- 
ance to the king and fidelity to the proprietor. The assem- 
bly also went on to debate " what Persons are fit to be 
elected, as also who are fit to make Election." '' The fruit 
of this debate is seen in a few changes which the Great L 
made in the laws agreed upon in England. Both elec: 
and elected must now believe in " Jesus Christ to be the son 
of God, the Saviour of the World;" but they were freed 
from the clause requiring a definite part of their land- 
be cultivated. All freeholders must indeed have their lands 
" seated" or settled, but no longer need they have ten or 
twenty acres under cultivation. Those paying scot and 
lot retained their right to vote. These provisions — one hun- 
dred acres of land seated, or fifty acres for freed serva 
and the payment of scot and lot — continued in force unti! 
all the proprietary legislation was set aside by Gover 
Fletcher in 1693. 

1 Charter and Laws, 472. The preface to Vol. I of the Votes of As 
sembly says that this first assembly was attended by " so many of th< 
Freemen as thought fit to attend" (Votes, I, p. iii) ; but the writ pr 
that the assembly was a representative and not a primary organizatio 
and the Votes themselves on the first page record an undue election fc 
one of the Newcastle members. 

-Ibid.. 105: Votes, I. I. 4- * Votes. 1 

4 Chapters II and LVII, Charter and Lazes. 108. 121. 



The Suffrage in Pennsylvania. 277 

While there was no change in the legal qualifications 
of the suffrage 1 in the period of ten years, yet several 
interesting administrative facts may be mentioned. Both 
the frame of 1682 and that of 1683 required the election 
of representatives by ballot, but this appears not always 
to have been carried out, and we are unfamiliar with the 
actual details of the process when the balloting-box was 
used. 

As early as March, 1682-3, a question in the assembly 
was settled by a bean ballot, which is described in the fol- 
lowing words : " the Number of Votes was decided by 
Beans, put into the Balloting-Box ; and by the major Votes, 
it was carried in the Affirmative/' 2 A contested election 
:ase in Philadelphia in 1689 shows a lack of uniformity 
existing in election procedure. There appears no objection 
to ascertaining the election upon the " view" of the sheriff, 
by the acclamation of the electors, except, as in this case, 
where a number of unqualified persons mingled with the 
electors and by acclamation carried the election of their can- 
didate. The petitioners to the council aver that fifty or 
sixty " Welsh men" and persons " out of Jarsey" had elected 
a councillor who would not have received a majority of 
legal votes had a poll or ballot been taken. Yet in the new 
election which was ordered the sheriff stated in his return 
that the freemen were not willing to vote by ballot, prefer- 
ring by voice to elect their councillors. 3 The second elec- 
tion was questioned also when the returns were sent to the 
:ouncil, because it was not taken by ballot. And again 
:here appeared great confusion of thought and practice. 
3ne member said that the ballot was only used when doubt 
existed as to the candidate receiving the majority of votes 
(voices) ; another stated that the ballot was used only in 
Philadelphia County, while in other places " we are elected 
:>y vote." But this was denied by a third member who said 
-hat at Upland (Chester) and all the lower counties the 
Section was made by putting black and white beans into 

The frame of April 2, 1683, did not change the suffrage conditions, 



ine irame ot April 2, 1083, did not change the sunrage c 

although it greatly modified the organization of the legislature 

2 Votes, I, I, 8. 3 Col. Rec, I, 268, 279, 



281-2. 



278 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colon 

a hat, " which is a ballotting in his sense." x Among the 
patent reasons for neglect of the ballot was the < 
finish the elections in a short time in order that the farn 
who often travelled many miles to vote, might return hi 
in good season. Another reason without doubt was the fact 
that many of the electors could not write out their ball 
and must either have the ballot written for them 
voting viva voce, proclaim to the other electors their inat> 
to write. 

In 1692 Penn was dispossessed of his government, ami 
Governor Fletcher, of New York, was commissioned royal 
governor of Pennsylvania and the " Countrey of New* 
tie," with as great powers as those he possessed in N 
York, 2 including the power to call assemblies elected by the 
majority of the freeholders. The sole change in the suf- 
frage by this royal assumption of control is found in the 
omission of the scot and lot inhabitants and in the remo\ 
the requirement of a definite size of freehold. Fletcher ap- 
pears unwilling to enlarge or limit the terms of his conv 
sion in this respect, and although in the " Petition of Rig 
he agreed to eighty-six chapters of the statutes passed be- 
fore his time, yet Chapter II of the Great Law of 1682. 
giving the property qualifications of voters, was omitted 
while Chapter LVII, containing the religious qualifica; 
was retained. The natural inference to be drawn from 
omission is that Fletcher did not care to add the scot 
lot payers to the freeholders of his commission nor to re 
strict the latter word to those possessing one hundred a 
or more of settled land. There can be no doubt, however 
that little actual change in the suffrage was made by thi 
omission of the previous qualifications. The scot and 
voters must have been few in number and confined to PI 
delphia County, where the city of Philadelphia and the bor 

1 West Jersey had advanced to a more definite method, for as early a 
September, 1683, it was provided that votes were to be given in 
upon pieces of paper (Learning and Spiccr, 478). Compare also th 
corn and bean ballot in Mass. and Conn., and the ballot in South Care 
lina. 

'October 21, 1692, Pennsylvania Col. Rec., I, 352-7; New York Co 
Doc., Ill, 856-860. 



The Stiff rage in Pennsylvania. 279 

otigh of Germantown, the only incorporated places in the 
province, 1 were situated. 

Penn's province was restored to him by the Crown on 
August 20, 1694, 2 and shortly afterwards Penn commis- 
sioned William Markham as his governor. After a long 
contest with the assembly, 3 Markham issued a new frame 
of government, the third which the province had received. 4 
Markham' s frame restored the term freeman, which had 
been changed by Fletcher's commission to freeholder, and 
denned the term in a manner which was but slightly changed 
down to the Revolution : 

j 

" 3. And to the end, It may be known who those that in this Province 

& territories have right of, or be deemed freemen to Choose or to be 
Chosen to serve in Council and assembly as aforesaid : 

" Be it Enacted by the authority aforesaid, That no Inhabitant of this 
Province or Territories, shall have right of electing or being elected as 
aforesaid, Unless they be free Denizens of this government and are of 
the age of Twenty-one years or upwards, and have fifty acres of land, 
ten acres whereof being seated and cleared, or be otherwise worth fifty 
pounds lawful money of this government Clear estate, and have been 
Resident within this government for the space of two years next be- 
fore such election." 

Here for the first time we have a definite suffrage pro- 
vision clothed in a modern phraseology and adapted to the 
needs of a community which was receiving large numbers 
of foreign immigrants into its midst. The voter must be 
a free denizen of the government; that is, if foreign-born 
he must have become naturalized and taken the oaths or 
affirmations of allegiance to the Crown and fidelity to the 
proprietor; he must be twenty-one years of age and have 
resided in the province at least two years. The old mediaeval 

x The charter of 1691 to Philadelphia, may or may not have been in 
force in 1693. The exact status of affairs under this charter has not 
yet been determined by local historians. Germantown received the first 
borough charter granted in the province, in 1689. Penna. Archives, I, 
Hl-115; Holcomb, Johns Hopkins University Studies, IV, 158. 

2 Charter and Laws, 245. 

3 See Shepperd, Proprietary Government in Pa., 278-283. 

4 During session of assembly, October 26-NovemDer 7, 1696. 



280 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

alternative to the freehold — the scot and lot — was changed 
to a definite personal property qualification. 

Three years after the granting of Markham's frame a 
most interesting contest arose over the neglect of the 
frage by certain counties. Fines for refusal to hold office 
and perform political duties were common in the early 
tory of almost all the colonies, and in a number there existed 
punishments for individual neglect of the suffrage, 1 while 
Massachusetts fined towns refusing to elect representati 
but it was left for the Pennsylvania legislature of 1699 t0 
exceed all other legislation of this nature. The three 1 
Delaware counties were growing restive under the increase 
of wealth and population in the three Pennsylvania 
ties, and feared an early increase in the number of con: 
in the province, with a consequent breaking down of the 
equality of representation between the province and the 
territories. 2 In 1699 the freemen of Newcastle County, duly 
warned by the sheriff, met for purposes of election, but ut- 
terly refused to make any selection of representatives. This 
refusal was termed by the assembly a great contempt of 
the governor and the authority of the government and M a 
most manifold Slight of that inestimable priviiedge of being 1 
represented in Legislation by reason of their owne choii 
The assembly then proceeded to force the " inestimable 
priviiedge" upon the people by placing a penalty of one hun- 
dred pounds fine upon any county refusing to elect repre- 
sentatives, and providing that the sum could be levie- 
distress and sale of the goods of any four or more in 
tants of the county, who should be reimbursed by a county 
tax upon all property. Heavy fines were also imposed upon 
individual sheriffs neglecting their duties in elections, and 
upon representatives refusing to serve when elected. 4 

The Delaware members attended the sessions of the next 
two assemblies, but their attendance must have been due 
more largely to the presence of the proprietor than to the 
threats contained in the law of 1699. Penn, himself, recog- 

1 Early Md., Mass., Del., Va., etc. 

2 Votes, I, I, 130. 

3 Charter and Laws, 278. 
* Ibid., 279. 



The Suffrage in Pennsylvania. 281 

nized the differences between the two sections in his charter 
of 1 70 1, and made provision for the legislative separation 
of the territories from the province, a permission taken ad- 
vantage of by the lower counties in 1702. 

The assembly meeting in the fall of 1700, under the 
direction of Penn, revised and re-enacted the laws of the 
province, 1 making little change in the suffrage conditions. 
Fifty acres of freehold or fifty pounds of personal estate 
were retained as stated by Markham's frame, but it was 
now required that twelve acres of the freehold, instead of 
ten. should be cleared and improved. 2 An act for naturali- 
zation, passed at the same session, put this power into the 
hands of the proprietor or his governor. 3 Penn's new frame 
of government, signed October 28, 1701, did not specify 
the qualifications of electors, but referred to the act of No- 
vember 27, 1700. It reinstated, however, the former relig- 
ious qualification for office-holders, requiring their belief 
in Christ as the Saviour of the world. 4 This test was 
strengthened beyond the terms of the charter by later action. 
As early as 1703 5 the members of assembly took the vari- 
ous English tests, either by oath or affirmation, against the 
political or spiritual control of the Pope, denying the doc- 
trine of transubstantiation, and denouncing the adoration 
of the Virgin and the practice of the mass. 

For several years after Penn's departure for England, 
the subject of the suffrage does not appear in any of the 
records. The attention of the legislature, however, was 
called to the conduct of elections in 1705 through a petition 
from Philadelphia County, setting forth how an election had 
been determined first by the " vote" (viva voce), and, as the 

1 Statutes at Large, II, 3-141. 

2 Ibid., 24. 

1 Ibid., 29. Both of these acts were repealed by the Queen in Council, 
February 7, 1705-6. The reason given for repealing the election act was 
that it provided for advertisement of elections on trees or houses as well 
as court houses. " It ought to have been ' churches, chapels, and public 
meeting-houses !' " {Statutes at Large, II, Appendix, 465.) 

l A Collection of Charters and other Publick Acts Relating to the 
Province of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, B. Franklin, 1740. 

5 Votes, I, II, 1. 



282 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

time grew late, the country people set out for their to 
but that afterwards the ballot-box was called for, and by the 
votes of servants and unqualified persons, the candidal 
the country people was set aside. 1 The episode led to a 
and comprehensive election law, the terms of which appear 
to have called forth considerable debate in the assembly. 
Among the questions discussed was that of allowing the 
qualified inhabitants of the city of Philadelphia to vot< 
the two city members and for the eight county members 
as well, thus giving them a double vote. 2 A pr 
require fifty pounds value of real estate in the countie- 
fifty pounds of personal property in the city was \ 
down, 3 and the qualifications as laid down in the act of 
1700 were adopted. 4 The act itself, consequently, is of 1 
value in the making, and as showing new administrative pro- 
visions to protect the suffrage than because it introduces new 
qualifications. 5 

It is not our part to analyze the election laws of the col- 
• ony, but reference may be made to some of the important 
provisions of this first general election law. The legislature 
is composed of eight members from each county and 
from the city of Philadelphia. Electors are to be n; 
or naturalized citizens, twenty-one years of age, resi - 
of the province for two years, and possessing fifty 
of freehold, twelve of which is cleared, or fifty pou 
personal property. Fines are imposed upon those vi 
V w T ho do not possess these qualifications, as also for britx 
or voting more than once. Elections are to be by written 
ballots deposited in boxes, with the polls open from ten in 
the morning till two in the afternoon, and adjourning from 
day to day. Provision is made for judges, inspectors, and 

1 Penna. Magazine of History and Biography, II. 452. 

2 Votes, I, II, 69. 

3 Ibid., 76. A requirement of £50 value of real estate would have been 
almost prohibitive, for as late as 1775, in Philadelphia County (outsid 
the city), the wealthiest and most populous county in the colony, there 
were only 147 persons assessed at over £50 out of a total rateable popu- 
lation of 6941 persons. 

* I bid., 70. 

''Statutes at Large. II, 212-221 ; Act of January 12, 1705-6. 



The Suffrage in Pennsylvania. 283 

clerks of election ; for returns by indenture to the governor 
and the assembly, and for fines upon those refusing to serve 
after election. The provisions of this act furnished the out- 
line for all subsequent laws upon the subject in the colony. 
There were frequent changes in the method of selecting the 
election officials, particularly after the counties were divided 
into voting precincts, but the main provisions of the act of 
1706 remained unchanged. 

At the same session of assembly an act was passed regu- 
lating the elections of sheriffs and coroners, 1 which soon 
became a source of trouble. The act prescribed the method 
of electing these officers, but it did not state exactly the 
qualifications of electors at such elections. It was doubt- 
less understood that the body of electors was the same for 
sheriffs and coroners as for representatives, since the former 
officers were to be elected in a double number after the 
election of assemblymen had taken place. From this double 
list of nominees the governor should choose one for each 
office, or, if he neglected this duty, then the person having 
the highest number of votes should assume the position. 2 
The voters in this act were described as " freemen and 
electors,'* " freemen and inhabitants," and " freemen or 
electors," apparently making a distinction between the words 
freeman and elector. It was this ambiguity which led to 
disorders at elections and to the participation of many 
poorer people in the balloting for sheriffs and coroners. In 
January, 171 3-14, a petition from Philadelphia called atten- 
tion to the defects of the law, 3 but the assembly gave no 
redress. The following year the assembly was compelled 
to set aside both the persons receiving an apparent major- 
ity, 4 and two years later they passed an act limiting the suf- 
frage for sheriffs and coroners to those qualified to vote for 
representatives. 5 

1 Act of January 12, 1705-6, Statutes at Large, II, 272-5. 

2 Compare the common Dutch practice of double and triple nomina- 
tions (American Historical Review, VI, 712-713). 

3 Votes, II, 146 ; Statutes at Large, III, 138. 
*Ibid., 159, 166. 

'Ibid., 213; Statutes at Large, III, 138-140; act of August 24, 1717- 
This act required each voter to present on one piece of paper the names 



284 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

Exactly the same misinterpretation was made regarding 
the choice of election inspectors under the act of 170^. 
the mingling of unqualified persons among the electors and 
their taking part in the viva voce vote for inspectors. 1 ! 
tioners from Chester County first called the attention of the 
assembly to the abuse in 1726, and although a supplem 
ary act was passed the following year, 2 yet great disor 
occurred in 1739, 3 and the machinery of election was thi 
after frequently changed in detail in order to adjust it to 
these conditions. 4 

From 1706 onward the interest in the suffrage in Penn- 
sylvania centres not in the electors but in the masses of 
non-voters, who, legally disqualified, used every possible 
means to influence the elections. One sees them frequently 
in the background of the election picture with stick- 
stones or even " billets of wood," instead of the forbidden 
ballots, trying by physical means to express their .opinions. 
From the point of view of the ruling class they are " ser- 
vants," or " great numbers of disorderly persons," or " an 
outrageous Multitude," who, by " their rude and disorderly 
behaviour" disturb the elections, or who " presumed to 
when they did not have the right so to do." Mention 
already been made of their place in the city election of 1 ; 
and how their interference in other elections compelled 
greater and greater stringency and accuracy of statement in 
the election laws. 



of eight persons for representatives, two names for coroner, an; 
names for assessors of the county. The act of March 20, 1724-5 changed 
this from one piece to three distinct papers, one for each of the I 
classes of officers voted for. {Votes, II, 309; Statutes at Large, IV. 
10.) 

1 Statutes at Large, IV, 331. 

a Votes, III, 8, 9, 14, 25, 31 ; Statutes at Large, IV, 77 ; Col. Re 
277-8. 

3 Ibid., 324, 337; Statutes at Large, IV, 331. 

* Statutes at Large, IV, 375 ; V, 16, 153, 465 ; and Pamphlet Laws, acts 
of March 4, 1763, February, 1766, February 26, 1773. In one of these 
laws occurs the only instance known of the application of the tern 
" hundred" to a political unit in Pennsylvania history (Statutes at 
Large, IV, 331) ; the hundred being a subdivision of the county for 
pose of choosing election inspectors. 



The Suffrage in Pennsylvania. 285 

If our space permitted, it would be interesting to note the 
Dart played by these persons in a number of later contested 
elections. In 1739 Chester County sends up its protest 
igainst them; 1 and in 1742 it is Philadelphia which ob- 
jects to its " bloody election" and the interference of a band 
)f "strange sailors." 2 In 1749 Lancaster County has a 
^reat scandal, unqualified persons and even boys voting, 
some casting three, five, or ten ballots, and the total of votes 
:ast perhaps more than doubling the number of voters at 
:he election. 3 The following year, York County has its 
:urn, and recounts a sorry story of the sheriff driven from 
the ballot-box and the polling place by a " multitude of Peo- 
ple, chiefly Germans." 4 In 1752 Bucks County sent its 
petition against "able Freeholders greatly questioned, and 
others (perhaps making a better Figure) though insufficient, 
accepted" as electors ; and York County again had a protest, 
this time against candidates " laying open the Public Houses 
at the Time of Election." 5 In almost every one of these 
cases the assembly tried to patch up the election law at 
the point where its weakness had admitted the unqualified 
persons. xAiter 1752, frequent changes were made in the law 
for the choice of inspectors of election, 6 and at last these 
officers were required to use the constables' lists of taxables 
to aid them in judging of the qualifications of voters. 7 This 
machinery of election must have become more closely adapted 
to the wishes of the legislators, for in the later years there 
is little record of election disputes, and Acrelius, in 1758, 
in describing the method of election in the province, makes 
no reference to the excluded classes, although he gives a 
circumstantial and detailed account of elections. 8 

That the disqualified class was a large one is a patent 

1 Votes, III, 324, 337; Col. Rec, IV, 335; Statutes at Large, IV, 331. 

*Ibid., 497-506, 521 and appendix; Col. Rec, IV, 620-638; Stat- 
utes at Large, IV, 375; Penna. Mag. of Hist, V, 11. 

3 Ibid., IV, 1 17-126; Mombert, History of Lancaster County, 150. 

*Ibid., 150, 152; Col. Rec, V, 468. 

5 Ibid., 204-5; Statutes at Large, V, 159. 

'Acts of March 11, 1752; September 29, 1759; March 4, 1763; Feb- 
ruary 8, 1766; February 26, 1773. 

' Acts of March n, 1752, and February 8, 1766. 

"Memoirs. Penna. Historical Society, XI, 119-121. 



l^ 



286 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

fact; but it is difficult to arrive at any definite conclu 
concerning the proportion which the voting class bore to the 
whole male population. An inspection of assessment lists i 
give some clue to the size of the class exercising the 
frage. The Historical Society of Pennsylvania has three 
tax-lists in its general collections — one for the count\ 
Philadelphia for 1693, 1 another for Chestnut, South. 
Middle wards of the city for 1754, 2 and the third for CI 
nut, Lower Delaware, and Walnut wards of the city 
1767. 3 

In 1693 the suffrage was based on the instructions to 
Governor Fletcher, which limited the franchise ; 
holders. Unfortunately, the tax-list of that year does 
show the property upon which the assessment was made, 
and hence does not give the exact number of freeholds 
The list shows one hundred and eighty-six persons pa\ 

1 " By Virtue of a Law made at Philadelphia by a Gen 11 A 
held the 15 th May, 1693. For Granting One penny per pound To ! 
William & Queen Marey, etc." 

2 " A Tax of two pence in the pound and six shillings per head i 
on the Estates of the Freeholders & Inhabitants of the City of Phila 
delphia. . . . Assessed the 20th day of Aug. 1754." 

"'We the subscribers Overseers of the poor have laid the folio. 
Tax of two pence in the pound and six shillings p. head on the Esl 
and Inhabitants of the City of Philadelphia." 

Dated December 12, 1767. 

Total. Men. Women. Pollux. 

4 City 356 342 14 

Northern Liberties 61 59 2 28 

Oxford Township 32 31 1 m 

Cheltenham 23 23 

Bristol Township 16 16 

Germantown Township 51 50 1 II 

Plimouth Township 2 2 

Byberry 18 18 

Upper Precinct 5 5 

Dublin 27 27 

Passiunk, Wiccaco, Moyamensing 27 27 

Beyond Schuykill 18 18 

Welsh tract 69 67 2 24 

Total 705 685 -'o 186 



The Suffrage in Pennsylvania. 287 

oil-tax out of a total male taxable population of six hun- 
red and eighty-five; but even this does not give us a clue 
D the suffrage, for the least amount of property assessed 
fas thirty pounds ; those having less than that being taxed 
n the head, among whom must have been many small f ree- 
olders. We are forced to turn from this to the second one 

f 1754. 

At this time, under the act of 1706, those inhabitants had 
he right to vote who held fifty acres of land or fifty pounds 
alue of property, real or personal. The tax-list gives us 
he taxables for Chestnut, South, and Middle wards of the 
ity of Philadelphia. It may be taken for granted that no 
>ne held fifty or more acres in any of these wards, 1 and that 
he distinction between the voting and non-voting classes 
an be based upon the value of the property held. 2 The list 
hows a total of four hundred and eighty-six male taxables, 
)f whom sixty-three, or about 13 per cent., were assessed 
or fifty pounds or over. The list of 1767 3 shows fifty-three 
>ut of three hundred and sixty-four male taxables possessing 
ifty pounds or over ; a proportion of nearly 1 5 per cent. 

It is difficult to determine at this late day what relation 
he assessed value of property bore to its market value, and 

1 Penn's final plan of division of city lots gave two acres in the city 
each purchaser of one hundred acres in the country. 
* Summary of Philadelphia City taxables for 1754 : 



Taxed on 



Males 



Men. Women. -5«ii assessed 
over ^50. 



Poll 

Chestnut Ward 99 14 J 9 22 

South Ward 142 10 22 17 

Middle Ward 245 22 30 2 4 

Total : 486 46 71 63 

1 Summary of Philadelphia City taxables for 1767 : 

Men. 



Chestnut Ward 114 

Lower Delaware 139 

Walnut Ward in 

Total 364 45 "i 53 



amen. 


Taxed on 
Poll. 


Males 
assessed 
over £s o. 


II 


36 


20 


13 


43 


20 


21 


32 


13 



288 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

it is not clear whether the assessment lists were made the soli 
basis for the voting privileges, since the laws of 1752 anc 
1766 stated that the tax-lists were to be given to the ele< 
inspectors to enable them " the better to judge of the quali 
fkations of the electors." 1 But making all possible all 
ances for these elements of error, the fact is apparent tha 
only a small minority of the male inhabitants of the city 
Philadelphia were legally qualified for exercising the dec 
toral franchise. 

Access has also been gained to two other assessment lists 
from which some valuable deductions may be made. Om 
of these is for certain farming districts in Philadelphia 
County, showing not only the value of the estates but als< 
the exact number of acres of land owned by each freeholde 
in the spring of 1776. Another is a list of the taxable in 
habitants for the whole city and county of Philadelphia fo; 
the year 1775. 2 From these lists a valuable comparison cai 
be made showing the extent of the suffrage in a populou 
farming community and in the city of Philadelphia. 

The list for 1776 gives us the taxable inhabitants of twel\« 
townships in the northwestern part of Philadelphia Com 
showing the nature and amount of each taxable's estate 
By a count of the names and estates here given, it appear 
that among fourteen hundred and fifty-five male taxable in 
habitants, seven hundred and forty-three, or a little 1 
50 per cent., owned fifty or more acres of land. It must b 
remembered, too, that this was a populous district, near th 
city of Philadelphia, where, if anywhere in the colony, farm 
would be small. In the back counties where land was cl 
and farms large, the proportion of voters to the whole mal 
population may have been even higher. Such a proport 
making one person in every two taxable males a voter, woul< 

Statutes at Large, V, 156; VII, 37- 

*"A tax of three Pence in the Pound and Nine shillings per Hea 
laid on the Estates of the Freeholders and Inhabitants of the City an 
County of Philadelphia for paying Assembly Mens Wages, Building an 
Repairing of Bridges, Destroying Wolves, Foxes and Crows, and othe 
Exigencies of the County for the ensuing Year. 

Assessed the 31 st day of March, 1775" 

"The following table gives a summary of the taxable inhabitants < 
these townships according to the assessment of 1776: 



The Suffrage in Pennsylvania. 



189 



ive us perhaps one elector in every ten or twelve of the 
Dpulation. 

On the other hand, those who were qualified to vote under 
le fifty pounds clause in the country must have been very 
*w in number. In 1775 the twelve townships mentioned 
)ntained only fourteen persons who were assessed for fifty 
Dunds or over. In places more distant from the centre of 
ealth and population, the proportion owning that amount 
as even smaller. An assessment list of Berks County for 
774 shows only twenty-nine taxables assessed for fifty 
Dunds or over out of a total taxable population of three 
lousand eight hundred and eighty-five, or not one in a hun- 
red ! Evidently, if the assessment lists were used as the law 
irected to determine a man's qualification for the suffrage, 
ery few received that privilege under the fifty pounds pro- 
ision. 1 



Tax of 1776. 



rankford and New Hanover. 

ouglas township 

pper Hanover township 

imerick township 

pper Salford township 

owerSalford " 

rederick " 

erkiomen and Skeipack town 

ship 

ranconia township 

ristol " 

orriton " 

rovidence " 



« H 

< Z 

< H 

h a 

h 
O 

h 



183 
159 
130 

139 
108 

79 
7i 

97 

78 

88 

120 

232 



1484 



29 



Male Taxables. 



v .9, 



77 
74 
76 
52 
42 

33 

61 

47 
28 

39 
116 



S 10 






743 520 199 1455 



179 
156 
129 

135 

106 

78 

68 

97 

75 

85 

120 

227 



as 

* O 



14 



*The figures of last column are taken from the list of preceding year (1775)- It is 
ilikely that any considerable change took place. 

l "A Register of the Eighteenth 18 Penny Provincial Tax and a 
ounty Tax, Assessed and Laid on the Inhabitants of the County of 
erks, in the Month of December, A. D. 1774." I have used the MS. 
anscript in the Pennsylvania Historical Society. 

19 



290 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

While, however, the fifty acres requirement was met by 
nearly one-half of the adult male population in the country 
districts, it would be almost prohibitive in the city and bor- 
oughs, where the franchise would of necessity be based upon 
the value of estates rather than their area. The tax-lists lead 
to the belief that fifty acres of land and fifty pounds estate 
were by no means equivalent terms ; and the franchise was 
more widely extended in the country than in the city of Phil- 
adelphia or the boroughs. 1 

A tax-list for 1775 gives the value, but not the size of the 
estates of all taxable inhabitants of the city and county. Tak- 
ing the figures from this list, 2 it is clear that the suffrage 1 

1 The restriction of the suffrage in the city has been ascribed to the 
desire of the ruling party to keep control of the government, by limiting 
the voters in Philadelphia and the number of representatives in the 
western counties. (C. H. Lincoln, The Revolutionary Movement in 
Penna., 1760-1776, 45 ; and Penna. Mag. of Hist., XXIII, 27 note.) 

2 The following table gives a summary of this tax-list. 



City. 






Female 
Taxables. 



Male Taxables. 



- 
& 

I 



853 

146 

336 

96 

136 

149 

384 

1079 

191 



Dock Ward 

Walnut Ward 

South Ward 

Middle Ward 

Chestnut Ward 

Lower Delaware Ward 

High Street Ward 

North Ward 

Mulberry Ward 

Upper Delaware Ward 



Total for city 

County outside city 



Entire city and county 



891 
96 

153 
362 
103 
132 
161 
410 
1121 
196 



8? 

10 
16 

43 

14 

15 

iS 

46 
65 
21 



3625 
6941 



44 



129 



597 

67 

97 

225 

68 

80 

109 

262 

916 

140 



335 2561 
147* 5789* 



169 
15 
33 
68 

14 
3i 
22 

7 S 
98 

30 



10566 



44 



129 



482 



556 
1005 



8350 



1561 



3452 



* Female taxpayers have not been distinguished in the county ; but the number is * 
small as to be insignificant. 



The Suffrage in Pennsylvania. 



291 



far more restricted in the urban than in the suburban and rural 
districts. In the city for the year 1775 out ot ' a tota ^ ot ' three 
thousand four hundred and fifty-two male taxables, there 
were only three hundred and thirty-five persons who were 

Taxables, County outside City. 



Township. 



Over . Under 



Polls. 



Total. 



Abington 

Blockley 

Bristol 

Byterry 

Cheltenham 

Douglas 

Frederick 

Franconia 

Frankford and New Hanover . 

Germantown 

Gwinedth 

Hatfield 

Harsham 

Kingsessing 

Lower Merion 

Lower Dublin 

Lower Salford 

Limrick 

Moyamensing 

Montgomery 

Manor of Moreland 

Marlborough, 

Norriton 

Northern Liberties, West Part. 
Northern Liberties, East Part . 

Oxford 

Plymouth 

Providence 

Passyunk 

Perkiomen and Skippack 

Roxborough 

Southwark 

Springfield 

Tonamencin 

Upper Hanover 

Upper Salford 

Upper Merion 

Upper Dublin 

Whitemarsh 

Whitpain 

Worcester , 



3 

1 

4 
o 
2 
2 
o 
o 
o 

12 

o 
o 

I 

10 
2 



I 
2 
I 

I 

I 

iS 

25 

6 
1 
3 
4 
3 
5 

24 
1 



147 



113 
107 

74 

76 

85 
152 

90 

68 
165 
39i 
in 

73 
93 
66 

136 

153 

58 

127 ! 

69 

73 
236 

78 

96 
43o 
498 
118 

74 

197 

82 

85 

83 
680 

74 

66 

102 

87 
82 

94 
135 

99 
113 

57S9 



18 134 
26 J 134 

94 

92 



16 
16 
22 

9 

7 

12 

16 

79 

27 

9 

3i 
9 

54 
46 
20 

19 

7 

12 

5i 
12 

20 
4i 
52 
17 
26 
30 

9 
18 

19 
67 
12 

23 
22 
21 
21 
23 
38 
13 
15 



109 

163 

97 

80 
181 
482 
138 

82 
125 

85 
192 
202 

78 
147 

78 

86 
287 

9i 
117 

489 
575 
141 
101 

230 

106 
107 
771 

87 
S 9 
124 
108 
104 
119 

179 
112 

130 



1005 . 6941 



292 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

assessed for fifty pounds or more; or scarcely one taxable 
male in ten by this assessment had the proper qualification 
for the suffrage. It is recognized that there may be some 
elements of error in this list; the property may have been 
purposely undervalued, some of the city inhabitants may have 
owned fifty acres or more in the country, and some personal 
property may not have been assessed at all. But making 
allowance for such errors, it is still believed that the pro- 
portion of voters to non-voters in the city is relatively small. 
Looking over all of these assessment lists, it would ap- 
pear that one man in every two taxables had the right to \ 
in the country districts ; and estimating the taxables at one- 
fifth of the total population, we would find the franchise 
conferred upon one person in ten of the entire population 
of the farming communities. In the city of Philadelphia, 
on the other hand, where the fifty pounds clause would be 
the only qualification, but one taxable in ten possessed the 
requisite amount of property ; or, using the same proportion 
of taxables to the whole population, only one person in 1 
of the city population was shown by the tax assessment 
be qualified for the suffrage. There is thus a remarkable 
difference between the number of legal voters in the country 
and in the city in Pennsylvania. It may be further noted 
that the limited suffrage in Philadelphia does not compare 
favorably with the municipal franchise in New York, where 
the voting class, owing to the admission of inhabitants as 
voters, must have been several times larger than that in 
Philadelphia. The laws of Pennsylvania undoubtedly 
worked to the disadvantage of the mechanics and arti- 
of the city. 

We have hitherto been discussing the suffrage for the 
colonial legislature, but we may glance rapidly at a few in- 
stances in which the local suffrage qualifications varied fron 
the provincial requirements. 

The early history of local institutions in Pennsylvania i« 
still involved in considerable obscurity, although some short 
studies of the subject have been made. 1 Setting aside the 

*E. R. L. Gould, /. H. Univ. Studies, I; W. P. Holcomb, Penno 
Boroughs, J. H. Univ. Studies. IV; Howard, Local Const. Hi< 
U. S.: Allinson and Penrose. Phila.. xv-xliii. 



The Suffrage in Pennsylvania. 293 

conditions in the Swedish and Dutch days, and even those 
under the Duke of York's government, there still remain 
several problems in connection with the early history of 
institutions. Prominent among these is the question of 
the origin and functions of the Pennsylvania township. 
There is a strong contrast between the sturdy and com- 
pact New England town corporation and the vague and 
indefinite township in Pennsylvania in the seventeenth 
and eighteenth centuries. In New England the town is 
usually erected in a definite way, has precise boundaries, 
fixed powers, and distinct individuality. In Pennsylvania 
it is difficult to determine how the township began, and 
often we learn it is in existence in an accidental way by occa- 
sional references, rather than see its beginning in a formal 
act of incorporation. In a similar manner the functions of 
the early township, and even the titles of its officials, are lost 
in a fog of ambiguity which the light of occasional statutory 
provisions renders the more confusing. It is much to be 
desired that a comprehensive review of all the extant material 
on the subject should be made. 1 

Somewhat less obscurity surrounds the erection of the 
counties and the early years of Germantown borough, 2 but 
the political history of Philadelphia from 1682 to 1701 is 

1 It cannot be denied that some features of a democratic town organi- 
zation did exist in Pennsylvania. A town book of Darby, 1682-1804, is 
extant, which shows a communal activity in the election of officials and 
the making of by-laws which savors strongly of New England practice. 
(See transcript of this volume in the Historical Society of Pennsyl- 
vania.) The phrase town meeting was sometimes used with reference 
to the gathering of the people for elective purposes. Certain returns of 
elections of town constables and overseers of the poor made to the Lan- 
caster County court show this use of the words. The township of Bartt 
elected their candidates "by a towns meeting;" in another case the 
wording is " The township of derry Being met they chuse Adam Bame 
and John fleming or either of them to serve as Constabel for the En- 
suing year Chosen by us." In other returns the election is said to be 
by the "freeholders," or by the "inhabitants." (See the MS. returns 
bound up with " Lancaster County Court Papers, 1 752-1782," folios 
141-171, in Historical Society of Pennsylvania.) 

2 1689-1691. 



294 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

almost a blank. 1 In glancing at some variations of the local 
suffrage from the normal we cannot make a study of local 
institutions, but must content ourselves with a few references 
to the statutory provisions on the franchise. 

By the king's charter to Penn the proprietor was given 

" free and absolute power to Divide the said Countrey, and Islai 
into Tovvnes, Hundreds and Counties, and to erect and incorporate 
Townes into Borroughs, and Borroughs into Citties, and to make and 
Constitute ffaires and Markets therein, with all other convenient privil- 
ledges and immunities according to the merit of the inhabitants and the 
ffitness of the places." 

It further provided that Penn should have authority to erect 
manors and establish upon them courts-baron and view 
frankpledge. 

We need not here examine the details of the survey of 
Perm's "great town," 2 for these early acts are of an agra- 
rian rather than a political nature. On March 24, 168: 
Penn gave a charter to a " Free Society of Traders" \ 
were privileged upon their lands to establish a manor by the 
name of Frank, and to hold courts of general sessions, cov 
baron and -leet and view of frankpledge. 3 According 
the constitution adopted by this society, a plural system of 
voting was to be put in force. 4 Penn's frame of 1682, the 
laws made in England, and the Great Law of December, 
1682, neglect the whole subject of local government, with 
the exception of provisions for court procedure. Apparently, 
the counties of Philadelphia, Chester, and Bucks in the prov- 
ince, and of Newcastle, Kent, and Sussex in the territ* 
were erected shortly after Penn's arrival in the provin 
for we see the county organization sufficient by November 
18, 1682, to warrant the proprietor in sending writs to sher- 
iffs in six counties directing the election of seven assembly- 
men in each county. 6 

1 See Allinson and Penrose, Phila., xlv-7 ; Pcnna. Magazine of History 
and Biography, XV, 344; XVIII, 419. 

1 Hazard, Annals, 528, 594, etc. * Ibid., 541-550. 

* Ibid., So 2 ) Hazard, Register of Pcnna., I, 394. 

6 Ibid., 605. 

'Ibid., 603; but see also Charter and Laws, Appendix, 47 
I, I, 1-3- 



The Suffrage in Pennsylvania. 295 

In the somewhat voluminous legislation of March, 1682-3, 
and the two succeeding years, many details of local adminis- 
tration were given over to the county courts, including the 
levying of county taxes, the laying out of roads to public 
landings, and the appointment of viewers of pipe-staves, 
overseers of highways, and viewers of fences. 1 There is 
only one provision for the election of local officers, which 
is in Chapter 88 of the laws of 1692-3, requiring each 
town to choose one or two able persons to weigh bread ex- 
posed for sale. 2 No definition is given of the word town, 
nor of electors therein. It may be that town meant no more 
than a populous locality, and the subsequent use of the term 
would seem to justify this theory. 3 

The sheriffs and coroners by the frame of 1682 were to 
be appointed by the proprietor in the first instance; 4 but 
by the frame of 1683, sheriffs, coroners, and justices of the 
peace were to be appointed by the governor from a double 
nomination made by the assembly. 5 The new charter of 
1 70 1 placed the election of the sheriffs and coroners in the 
hands of the freemen of the respective counties, who should 
select a double number of candidates for those offices. 6 From 
this time down to the Revolution, county officials were 
elected by those qualified to vote for representatives, 7 and 
although attempts at voting were occasionally made by per- 

1 Charter and Laws, 133, 136, 139, 146, 178. 

2 Ibid., 135. 

3 See the use of the word in acts of May 10, 1698, Charter and Laws, 
276, and of November 27, 1700, Statutes at Large, II, 65-68. Seven 
towns are named: Bristol, Philadelphia, Germantown, Darby, Chester, 
Newcastle, and Lewes ; of which it is believed that only two, Philadel- 
phia and Germantown, had received any corporate power at this time. 
Yet Darby was holding regular meetings. 

4 Charter and Laws, 97. 
'Ibid., 159. 

8 Poore, Charters and Constitutions, II, I53& 

7 Charters and Laws, 256; Statutes at Large, II, 34. 272; III, 138; 
IV, 10, 77, 331. An act of March 9, 1771 (Pam. Laws, p. 112), permitted 
all freeholders to vote for freeholders to audit the accounts of the over- 
seers of the poor. This may have been an extension of the suffrage 
similar to that mentioned in the townships, since it neglected the fifty 
acres limitation. 



296 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

sons not so qualified, yet the legislature by increasingly strict 
laws prevented their interference. 

In the townships the officers were often appointed by the 
county court, or, where elective, the suffrage qualificat 
were apparently the same as those for electors of higher offi- 
cers. Only one case has been found where the township 
suffrage differed expressly from the provincial suffr 
This is in a law providing for the erection of pounds in each 
township which directed that the election of a pound-keeper 
should be by those who are " owners or possessors of 1; 
in each township. 1 This law, like the case mentioned 
previous note, by removing the fifty acres qualification, must 
have given the suffrage to small freeholders. 

Pennsylvania, like many other colonies, possessed the local 
unit called the borough. Four places received borough char 
ters during the colonial period, namely, Germantown, 1689; 
Chester, 1701; Bristol, 1720; Lancaster, 1742. 2 Oft) 
Germantown alone was constituted a close corporation with- 
out any popular elections ; a reason, perhaps, why the char- 
ter was permitted to lapse by non-user in 1706. 3 The char- 
ters of Chester, Bristol, and Lancaster show strong similari- 
ties to one another, and all of them contain provisions for 
popular elections, and even seem to permit popular t 
meetings. 4 These charters established a new class of \ 

1 Statutes at Large, IV, 116, May 10, 1729. 

2 There is some proof that Philadelphia had a borough organization 
before 1691, but almost nothing is known of this government; Allinson 
and Penrose, Philadelphia, 4. 

3 See charter in Pa. Archives, I, 111-115. For description, set 
Holcomb, Pennsylvania Boroughs, J. H. Univ. Studies, IV, 158. 

4 See Chester charter in J. H. Martin, History of Chester, 111-113. 
Bristol, in Ha2»rd, Register of Penna., Ill, 312-314; LancasU- 
Mombert, History of Lancaster County, Appendix, 141-146. For bor 
oughs in general, see Holcomb, op. cit. The following extracts will give 
an idea of the provisions for popular elections and town meetings: 

" And we do . . . grant full power and authority for the Bur- 
gesses, Constables, assistants and freeholders, together with 
such inhabitants, housekeepers within the said borough, as shall 
have resided therein at least for the space of one whole year 
next preceding any such election as is herein after directed, and 
hired a house and ground within the said borough of the yearly 



The Suffrage in Pennsylvania. 297 

in borough elections by extending the suffrage to house- 
holders as well as freeholders. In the first two charters, 
those of Chester and Bristol, the word householder is un- 
defined and unlimited; but in Lancaster the power of par- 
ticipation in elections was given to the freeholders, and to 
the " inhabitants, housekeepers within the said borough," 
who had resided in the borough one year before the election 
and who rented a house and ground of the annual rental 
of five pounds or upwards. 

A similar advance in definition was made in the term 
town meeting, which in Chester and Bristol passed without 
comment, but in Lancaster is to be composed of the " inhabi- 
tants." These provisions of the borough charters are of 
interest because they give us the closest approximation to 
democracy which was made by the province of Pennsylvania. 
Mr. Holcomb has written of the political activities of one 
of these boroughs, 1 but the part of the town meeting in all 
three might with profit be made the subject of further study. 
The town meeting feature reminds us of New England prac- 
tice, while the householder suffrage is remarkably similar 
to that in use in many of the English boroughs. 

Philadelphia possessed a more restricted suffrage than the 
boroughs, and she lacked altogether the town meeting which 
was their peculiar political feature. The charter of 1691, 2 
of somewhat doubtful authenticity, and that of 1701 3 both 
erected a municipality in which popular suffrage played no 
part. The mayor, recorder, eight aldermen, and twelve com- 
mon councilmen formed a close corporation, with power to 



value of five pounds or upwards" to hold annual election on 
September 15 for above officers. 

" And it shall and may be lawful for the said burgesses, high 
constables and assistants for the time being to assemble town 
meetings as often as they shall find occasion: At which meet- 
ings they may make such ordinances and rules, not repugnant 
to, or inconsistent with the laws of the said province, as to the 
greatest part of the inhabitants shall seem necessary and con- 
venient for the good government of the said Borough." 

1 Bristol, op. cit. 

'Allinson and Penrose, Phila., xlvii-lii. 

3 A Collection of Charters and Other Publick Acts relating to the 
Province of Pennsylvania. B. Franklin, Philadelphia, 1740, 35~42. 



298 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

fill vacancies in their own number and to elect annually a 
mayor from among themselves. 1 Although the charter men- 
tioned no popular election except for the county officers and 
coroner, yet it stated the qualification of electors and elected 
as laid down in the law of 1700. Subsequently, when the 
functions of the municipal authorities were found in; 
quate, the legislature, instead of increasing their authoi 
diverted a portion of municipal administration to elec 
or appointive boards. In the cases where these officials v. 
elective, it is believed that the qualification was always iden- 
tical with that for electors of representatives, 2 the descripl 
usually being " those of the inhabitants and freeholders of 
the said city who are qualified to elect and be elected to the 
assembly." 

Still another type of municipality starting in the colonial 
period of Pennsylvania history was to furnish a model for a 
number of strange municipal corporations which grew up 
around the city of Philadelphia. Penn's plot for the 
contained only eighteen hundred and twenty acres, which 
was laid out with about a mile on the Delaware front and 
over two and a half miles back to the Schuylkill. Population 
centred in the early years along the Delaware and soon 
grew the narrow limits set by the proprietor, while the b 
lots of the city were undeveloped. A large population thus 
settled to the northward and southward of the old city, and 
in these places there developed that abnormal municipality. 
the incorporated district. The district had greater pov, 
than a township, it was somewhat greater and somewhat less 
than a borough, and it was inferior to the city in dignity, 
although often its political activities almost paralleled tl 1 
of the city — Philadelphia. Nine of these districts, in addi- 
tion to six boroughs and thirteen townships, were con- 
dated in 1854, when the bounds of the city were exten 

1 This charter is even less popular in its terms than that granted by 
Dongan to New York. See ante; also Amcr. Hist. Rev., VI. 

N. Y. Col. Laws, I, 181-195. 

2 See acts of June 7, 1712; May 10, 1729; May 1, 1739; January 
1742-3; February 9, 1750-51; August 16, 1756; February 17. ' 
March 26, 1762; May 30, 1764; February 18, 1769; March 9, r 



The Suffrage in Pennsylvania. 299 

:o those of the county. 1 Only two of the districts, South- 
wark and Northern Liberties, were erected by the legislature 
n colonial times. The act of March 26, 1762, gave the 
jounds of the district of Southwark and provided for the 
Section of certain officers — regulators of streets, assessors, 
ind supervisors of streets — by the freeholders and other in- 
habitants of the district who were qualified by law to elect 
issemblymen. The act of March 9, 1771, provided for 
regulators of streets in the Northern Liberties, but it re- 
quired their appointment by the county commissioners instead 
3f by popular election. The subsequent history of these dis- 
tricts belongs to the commonwealth period, and must be put 
aside for the present. 2 

In conclusion, it may be said that the local suffrage varied 
but slightly from the colonial franchise. In Philadelphia 
apparently there was no variation whatever; in the towns 
and counties there was an infrequent substitution of the gen- 
eral term freeholder for the fifty acres or fifty pounds clause, 
while in the three boroughs occurred the greatest deviation 
by the inclusion of the householders within the voting class. 
There was no clear demarcation in Pennsylvania between 
the rural and the urban population as in New York, nor' 
the distinction between the voting class in town affairs and 
that in provincial affairs as seen in the New England cor- 
porations. Pennsylvania was content with practically one 
test of the suffrage for all elections, and that, as already 
shown, was the holding of fifty acres of land or of fifty 
pounds estate; while outside of Philadelphia the latter was 
so infrequently held that we may declare the suffrage, ex- 
cept in the city, to be based practically on fifty acres of free- 
hold. 

1 These districts were Southwark, Northern Liberties, Kensington, 
Spring Garden, Moyamensing, Penn, Richmond, West Philadelphia, and 
Belmont. 

2 No study of the incorporated districts of Philadelphia County has, 
so far as known, ever been made. Their organization, powers, and 
growth were remarkable, and deserve a place in the history of our in- 
stitutions. The material for such a study is extant, see Report on the 
Public Archives of the City and County of Philadelphia, by Herman V. 
Ames and A. E. McKinley, Report of American Historical Association, 
1901, Vol. II, 231-344. 



CHAPTER XL 
The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 
I. The Colony of Massachusetts Bay. 

The colony of Massachusetts Bay, while in English theon 
only the settlement of a trading company, was in reali 
great Puritan commonwealth. Its legal basis is to be fi 
in the royal charter of 1628-9; its practical strength 
in the solidarity of feeling among the Puritans. These 
factors, so diverse in their nature, and exercising sucl 
determining influence upon the church and state of the 1 ' 
tans, were united in the fixing of the qualifications for th( 
suffrage franchise. The English corporation principle 
freemanship, established by the charter, proved admin 
adapted to the religious exclusiveness which the Purr 
deemed necessary to the success of their state. Under 
other form of organization could their religious and e^ 
siastical ideals have approached so close to realization ; 
this organization, unwittingly, the Puritan-hater, Charle 
had prepared for them. It will be well, therefore, be 
investigating the suffrage conditions of the colony, to n 
the aims of the founders in making their settlement, and tht 
terms of that charter which they forced to do service for < 
state instead of a business company. 

There can be little doubt to-day that the religious m 
was the principal force in the establishment of the col" 
The " Conclusions for New England," probably th< 
of John Winthrop, circulated after May, 1629, state that 

" All other churches of Europe are brought to desolation, & o r sinne 
for w ch the Lord beginnes allreaddy to frowne upon us & to cutte u 
short, doe threatne evill times to be comminge upon us, and who 
knowes, but that God hath provided this place to be a refuge for man; 
whome he meanes to save out of the generall callamity. & seeinge tl 
Church hath noe place lefte to flie into but the wildernesse, what bette 
300 



The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 301 

.vorke can there be, then to goe & provide tabernacles & foode for her 
igainst she comes thether." x 

The failure of other colonies, it was said, came about because 
:heir " mayne end was carnall and not religious/' 2 Win- 
:hrop again, in his " Model of Christian Charity," written 
jn board the Arbella, says, — 

" For the worke wee have in hand, it is by a mutuall consent, through 
a special overvaluing providence and a more than ordinary approbation 
of y e Churches of Christ, to seek out a place of cohabitation and Con- 
sorteshipp under a due form of Government both civill and ecclesiasti- 
call. ,: 3 

Said Francis Higginson, the famous Puritan minister, — 

"We do not go to New England as Separatists from the Church of 
England, though we cannot but separate from the corruptions of it; 
but we go to practise the positive part of the Church reformation, and 
to propagate the Gospel in America." 4 

From their words at this early stage, as well as their acts 
later, it is plain that the establishment of a church discipline 
and organization according to the prevalent principles of 
Puritanism was the dominant motive for the founding of 
the colony. 

To the group of persons thus imbued with religious zeal 
for their peculiar faith, Charles I. gave added strength and 
definite legal standing by the grant of a charter of incor- 
poration. The king, " for divers good Causes and consid- 
eracons," on March 4, 1628-9, erected twenty-six named 
persons, and " all such others as shall hereafter be admitted 
and made free of the Company," into a corporation by the 
name of " The Governor and Company of the Mattachu- 
setts Bay in Newe-England." 5 The officers, " elected and 

1 Winsor, Memorial History of Boston, I, 105. 

2 Ellis, The Puritan Age in Massachusetts, 48. 

3 Winsor, Boston, I, 142. 

4 Ellis, op. cit., 55. 

5 Poore, Charters and Constitutions, I, 932-942. The king confirmed 
the land grant previously made by the Council for New England to six 
"f the incorporators. 



302 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

chosen out of the freemen of the saide Company" annu. 
were to be a governor, a deputy-governor, and eighteen 
assistants. The officers might meet monthly, and e\ 
quarter there was to be " one greate generall and solempe 
assemblie" of the company. These meetings, called general 
courts, were empowered to admit new freemen ; they could 
elect and constitute fit officers for the management of the 
concerns of the company; and could make laws and ordi- 
nances " for the Good and Welfare of the saide Comp; 
and for the Government and ordering of the saide Lar 
and Plantacons, and the People inhabiting and to inhabite 
the same," with the restriction that such laws should not be 
contrary to the laws of England. One further feature of the 
charter transformed these rules for the organization of a 
trading company and its colony, otherwise so unimportant, 
into terms of the highest political significance. The absence 
of any stated meeting place for the company is now believed 
to have been the result of conscious endeavor upon the part 
of the petitioners for a charter. 1 The omission of any place 
of meeting in England made possible the holding of com- 
pany meetings in New England, and brought about the 
identification of the company and the colony. 

Connecting these unintentionally broad terms of the char- 
ter with the determined group of men who were to admin- 
ister them, it is apparent that the charter gives abundant 
foundation for the establishment of a political common- 
wealth. Furthermore, the principle of freemanship, and 
the grant to the company of the power of admitting new 
freemen, made the leaders of the enterprise hope to restrict 
its membership to persons who were in religious accord v. 
themselves. Thus the Puritan theocracy was nurtured under 
the very terms of the royal charter. 

After the decision to remove the charter and the company 
was reached in the summer of 1629; after the new and 
more determined officers had been elected in the fall; after 
the Arbella with the charter and the new officers had a 
rived in New England; — after these steps had been taken 
there arose the question of the relation of the settlers in 
America to the recently arrived governor and compv 

1 Ellis, Puritan Age, 47; Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc, 1869-1870, 172-17S- 



The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 303 

Up to this time the colony had been governed by officers 
:hosen by the company in England, and the settlers had as 
yet no voice in their government. But they did not intend 
ong to remain disfranchised. 1 

The first meeting of the company in America, held on 
October 19, 1630, was made up of the freemen, not number- 
ing more than fifteen persons, and the settlers of the colony, 
who attended as a matter of privilege and not of right. 
At this meeting two distinct influences appear to be at work. 
The first of these was an effort to open the freemanship of 
the company to many of the settlers; and the second, an 
opposite tendency upon the part of the leaders of the enter- 
prise to make the government more aristocratic than the 
terms of the charter provided. The two movements may 
have been connected with one another, for the immediate 
acceptance into the freemanship of the one hundred and 
more persons who expressed a desire for it 2 would have 
outweighed in voting power the small number — only fifteen 
or twenty — of company freemen who had actually come to 
America. 3 The extension of the freemanship was appar- 
ently not granted at this time, and the less than a score of 
freemen kept their rare dignity until the following spring. 
But evidently in fear of a sudden extension of the fran- 
chise, it was propounded at the October meeting that the 
freemen elect the assistants only, the latter elect the governor 
and deputy-governor, and that these officers with the assist- 
ants make laws and choose all other officers. The matter 
was submitted, not to the few freemen alone, but to all the 
people assembled to witness the first general court of the 
company: "This was fully assented vnto by the genall vote 
of the people, and ereccon of hands." 4 Thus there began 

1 Were they familiar with the lenient course pursued in Plymouth for 
the admission of partners? 

s Palfrey, History of New England, I, 322 ; Hutchinson, History of 
the Colony of Massachuset's Bay (London, 1765), I, 25, says 109 free- 
men were admitted at this court ; but I have followed the inference of 
Palfrey that they only asked for admission, and did not receive it at 
this time. 

' Palfrey, I, 313, 323. 

4 Records of The Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay 
in New England, I, 79 (quoted hereafter as Mass. Col Rec.) 



304 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

that aristocratic tendency which later developed into the 
attempt to retain the assistants for life; l which could speak 
of an office as a freehold, 2 and lead to the establishment 
a standing life council. 3 " Democracy," said Cotton, " I do 
not conceive that God ever did ordain as a fit Government 
either for Church or Commonwealth." 4 

In the spring of 1631 occurred the first annual meeting 
of the court for elective purposes, and, it is believe* 1. 
first admissions of freemen upon this side of the Atlantic. 
At the meeting of May 18 the freemanship was conferred 
upon one hundred and eighteen persons. 5 But by far the 
most noted action of the court at this session was the adop- 
tion of a rule requiring all persons admitted to the freeman- 
ship in the future to be church members. Of the more than 
a hundred new freemen made at this court, it has been 1 
mated that at least one-half — perhaps three-quarters — v 
members of some church. 6 But, not satisfied with this pro- 
portion, the leaders of the Puritan experiment adopted for 
the future a definite religious test: 

" And to the end the body of the comons may be pserued [pre- 
served] of honest & good men, it was likewise ordered and agreed that 
for time to come noe man shalbe admitted to the freedome of this body 
polliticke, but such as are members of some of the churches within the 
lymitts of the same." 7 

It is likely that the recent demands for admission to the 
freemanship had aroused the founders of the movemer.' 
the danger which might come to their ecclesiastical ideals 
if those who were not church members should get a voice 

1 Mass. Col. Rec, I, 87. 

2 Winthrop, The History of New England from 1630 to 1640 (ed. 
Savage, 1853), I, 132. 

3 Mass. Col. Rec, I, 167, 264 ; Winthrop, I, 302. 

* Winsor, Memorial History of Boston, I, 161. For estimates of this 
aristocratic spirit see Doyle, Puritan Colonies, I, 103-104; Palfrey. 1 
322, 349; Haynes, Representation and Suffrage in Massachusetts, Johns 
Hopkins University Studies, XII. 383-385. 

8 Mass. Col. Rec, I, 366. 

'Palfrey, I. 348, note. 

'Mass. Col. Rec. I. 87. 






The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 305 

in the government. The picture of the narrow company 
freemanship blossoming out into a democratic government 
was one that does not appear to have come to the originators 
of the plan for the emigration to America. 1 But the recent 
applications for freemanship showed a breadth of political 
desire which argued ill for the ideals of the company unless 
they were well guarded; and in what better way could 
this be done than by limiting the political power to members 
of the churches? Cotton believed that " None are so fit to 
be trusted with the liberties of the commonwealth as church- 
members ; for the liberties of the freemen of this common- 
wealth are such as require men of faithful integrity to God 
and the state to preserve the same." 2 The two principal 
liberties of the freemen, he states, are the election of magis- 
trates and the choice of deputies. " Now both these liberties 
are such as carry along much power with them, either to 
establish or subvert the commonwealth." The Massachu- 
setts Company as originally established had been a Puritan 
enterprise, and when its charter became the frame of gov- 
ernment of a state, the integrity of the new controlling 
forces could be maintained only by the exclusion of non- 
Puritans. " The franchise was not one dependent upon 
social rank, nor upon pecuniary means, but upon hearty 
sympathy and accord in the religious intent of the enter- 
prise." 3 

Aside from the inequality inflicted upon open dissenters, 
there were, as Mr. Ellis has pointed out, 4 evident evil con- 
sequences of the religious qualification: the exclusion of 
many persons of upright lives who refused to rise before the 
congregation and make that public description of religious 
experience which was a prerequisite of church-membership, 
and the absence of any means for excluding hypocrites who 
entered the church for selfish and political reasons. Another 
and more practical source of irritation lay in the difficulty 
of determining what constituted church-membership. Con- 
compare Winsor, Memorial History of Boston, I, 161. 
2 Palfrey, I, 345, note. 
8 Winsor, Boston, I, 150. 
'Ibid., 151. 

20 



306 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colo), 

troversies arose both over the meaning of the word church 
and of the word member. 

The early extreme Congregationalism i led to the i 
duction of beliefs which differed greatly, or appea 
differ, from those of the founders of the colony. Hei 
more or less pronounced, arose in many congregation > 
the churches appeared more corrupt than the state. 2 
church consequently, as the source of citizenship, must be 
guarded and purged by the authority of the state; in self- 
protection the civil authority was compelled to define ortho- 
doxy and make provision for the punishment of heresy. 
Such a position was but the logical outcome of the religious 
qualification upon the suffrage. 3 As early as March 3, 
1635-6, the general court had found " by sad experience 
that much trouble and disturbance hath happened 1 
the church & civill state by the officers & members of 
churches, w ch have bene gathered within the limitts of this 
jurisdiccon in a vndue manner, & not with such publique 
approbacon as were meete." 4 To avoid such troul 
the future the court ordered that no company of p< 
should be recognized as a church unless the approval of the 
magistrates and of the elders of the greater part of the 
churches in the colony had first been obtained. The j> 
effect of the restriction 5 is seen in the further provision 

" that noe p'son, being a member of any churche which shall h 

be gathered without the approbacon of the magistrates, & the greater 

1 The early doctrine of the settlers was that seven or more Christians 
could by covenant enter into church association, taking for their guitk 
in faith and organization the Bible, and selecting their own ministers 
who, although owing their authority to God, obtained their official posi 
tion by the choice of the congregation (ibid., 163). 

2 Winthrop said in 1637, " Whereas the way of God hath always beer 
to gather his churches out of y e world, now y e world, or civ.i 
must be raised out of y e churches," quoted in Winsor, Boston, I 

3 Palfrey, I, 432. 

4 Mass. Col. Rec, I, 168. 

8 On the other hand, the religious side of the controv 
time is found in the eighty-two erroneous opinions declared heretica 
by the gathering of the clergy in 1637 at Cambridge (Winthrop, I 
284). 



The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 307 

pte of the said churches, shalbe admitted to the ffreedome of this com- 
onwealthe." 

Not content with the refusal, for the future, to admit 
members of irregular churches, the dominant party desired 
to exclude at once the members of such churches who were 
already freemen. Williams was exiled and Salem punished 
for accepting him as minister, but the Wheelwright affair 
led to a much wider forfeiture of political rights. Win- 
throp says the general court found " upon consultation, that 
two so opposite parties could not contain in the same body, 
without apparent hazard of ruin to the whole ;" 1 and accord- 
ingly, seizing a slight pretext, the court proceeded to banish, 
disfranchise, or disarm the principal persons connected with 
the movement. 2 And to prevent any further petitions or 
discussions upon the matter, the court ordered that the pun- 
ishment of disfranchisement, fine, imprisonment, or banish- 
ment could be inflicted upon any person " openly or will- 
ingly" defaming any court of justice or its proceedings or 
magistrates. 3 Temporarily, at least, the measures for at- 
taining religious conformity were successful ; 4 the state had 
purified the ecclesiastical source of citizenship; it had exer- 
cised its " power and libertie to see the peace, ordinances and 
Rules of Christ observed in every church according to his 
word." 5 A definition of the word church was thus ob- 
tained, which was made more precise later by the action of 
the Cambridge Synod of 1646 and 1647. 6 The meaning 
of church-membership, however, was not determined until 
1662, when the Half-way Covenant was adopted. 7 

Membership in the church was not the only formal requi- 
site for admission to the freemanship, although it was, 
indeed, the greatest practical limitation upon the suffrage. 
The church-member who desired to participate in the politi- 

1 1, 244. 

2 Mass. Col. Rec, I, 205-211. 

3 Ibid., 212-213. 

4 See Palfrey, I, 505-511, for a justification of the course of Massa- 
chusetts towards the Antinomians. 

5 Mass. Body of Liberties of 1641, section 58. 

8 Winthrop, II, 264, 269, etc. ; Palfrey, II, 170-187. 
7 See post. 



308 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colo> 

cal life of town or colony must be proposed to the general 
court or some special court, and by that body be formally 
admitted as a freeman, 1 and before acceptance he was o 
pelled to take an oath of fidelity to the Company. Freeman- 
ship did not follow ex officio from the relation of church- 
membership. Indeed, it is quite apparent that many m 
bers of the church did not desire the freemanship; being 
willing, perhaps, to forfeit their political rights in ordc: 
be freed from the duties of freemen. In 1643 tne cnur ' 
were instructed to deal with their members who refuse 
" take their freedom ;" 2 a few months later we learn of such 
a "defect" of freemen at Marblehead that the general 
authorized the choice of a non-freeman for constable. 3 In 
1647 tne court found that there were " many memb r 
churches, who, to exempt y m selves from all publike ser 
in y e comon wealth, will not come in to be made freemen 
Accordingly, all church-members, non-freemen as well as 
freemen, were rendered liable for service in town offices 
as jurymen, and placed under the penalty of a fine 
refusing to accept such positions. It is thus quite apparent 
that many churchmen were not members of the polr 
corporation. 

Not always was the formal process of admitting frt < 
retained by the general court. In 1641 the right was gi 
to " every Court within this Jurisdiction where tw< 1 
trates are present," to admit as freemen " any Church Mem- 
bers, that are fit to be Freemen," giving them the oath and 
certifying their names to the secretary at the next general 
court. 5 For about twenty years the county courts exercised 
this right; but in 1664 the power was revoked and acli 
sions for the future were to be made by the general court 
alone. 6 In addition to granting this authority for a time 

x Mass. Col. Rec, I, 117. 'Ibid., II, 38. 

*Ibid., II, 57- ' Ibid -' 2cS - 

B The General Laws and Liberties of the Massachusetts Colony (1672) 
38; Ernst, Constitutional History of Boston, 16. 

'Code of 1672, 56; Mass. Col. Rec., IV, Part II, 118. It is to 
noted, however, that the revisers of the laws in 1672, although printing 
the repealing act of 1664, yet permitted the clause of 1641 to stand on 
another page of their revised code. 



The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 309 

county courts, the general courts occasionally delegated 
individuals the right of accepting freemen and adminis- 
ering to them the oath of fidelity. In 1647 " M r Pinchin" 
,vas authorized " to make freemen in the towne of Spring- 
ieild, of those that are in covenant & live according to their 
yfession ;" 1 and in the same manner the commissioners 
sent by the court to obtain the submission of the Maine set- 
:lements were empowered to admit freemen and give the 
lecessary oaths. 2 These settlements were so distant from 
Boston that there could be no hope of having the inhabitants 
appear personally before the general court. In all other 
:ases, except during the period 1641 to 1664, the general 
:ourt alone exercised the right of admitting freemen to the 
:ompany. 

An oath to be administered to all freemen had been pre- 
scribed before 1634 ; 3 in April of that year the assistants 
Drdained an inhabitants' oath to be taken by all residents 
lot enfranchised, but who were above the age of twenty 
years and either householders or sojourners in the colony. 4 
In May a new freeman's oath was established, and the obli- 
gation of those who had taken the former oath was made to 
:onform with the obligations imposed by the new one. 5 It 

1 Mass. Col. Rec., II, 224. 

2 Ibid., IV, Pt. I, 122 ff. ; 128; 157; Williamson, History of the State 
of Maine, I, 334~357, 391- 

3 The date of the first form of freeman's oath is uncertain, Mass. Col. 
Rec, I, 353. 

'Ibid., 115. 

6 Ibid., 117. 

" The Oath of a Freeman. 
" I, A. B., being by Gods providence, an inhabitant & ffree- 
man within the jurisdiccon of this comonweale, doe freely ac- 
knowledge my selfe to be subiect to the govern^ thereof, & 
therefore doe heere sweare, by the greate & dreadfull name 
of the euerlyving God, that I wilbe true & faithfull to the same, 
& will accordingly yielde assistance & support therevnto, with 
my p'son & estate, as in equity I am bound, and will also truely 
indeavr to mainetaine & preserue all the libertyes & previlidges 
thereof, submitting my selfe to the wholesome lawes & orders 
made & established by the same; and furttV, that I will not 
plott nor practise any evill against it, nor consent to any that 



310 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

seems probable that from the first also an age requ 
ment was established according to English precedent. In 
1 64 1 the Body of Liberties made one and twenty \< 
" the age for giving of votes, verdicts, or Sentence in 
Civill courts." l Admission to the freemanship at this til 
therefore, was dependent (1) upon age, (2) church-mem- 
bership, (3) formal proposition to the general court, I 
acceptance by that body or some delegated authority, 
the taking of a freeman's oath. 

It is regretted that the demands of space will not all 
examination of the representative system, as it was through 
the growth of this system that the suffrage was given 
a practical value to the outlying settlements; but the on 
sion may be pardoned in view of the many accounts of 
system which have been written by local and general his- 
torians. 2 Reference should be made, however, to the method 
of balloting. At the outset the Massachusetts Company did 
not adopt the ballot in its elections, as we have seen 1 
the London Company did many years earlier, 3 but held 
elections in London by " erection of hands." 4 As earl; 
1629 the ballot was used in the church at Salem, and shi 
after the transmission of the charter to New Englan* 
was adopted in the Company's elections. It was origii 
used in the election of governor, the first occasion probably 
being the election of May, 1634; 5 and in September, v 



shall soe doe, but will timely discover & reveale the same to 
lawfull authority nowe here established, for the speedy pre- 
venting thereof. Moreouer, I doe solemnely bynde my selfe, in 
the sight of God, that when I shalbe called to giue my voice 
touching any such matter of this state, wherein fTreemen are 
to deale, I will giue my vote & suffrage, as I shall iudge in 
myne owne conscience may best conduce & tend to the publique 
weale of the body, without respect of p'sons, or fav r of any 
man. Soe helpe mee God, in the Lord Jesus Christ." 

1 Body of Liberties, Sect. 53. 

2 See particularly G. H. Haynes, Representation and Suffrage i 
Massachusetts, 1620-1691, J. H. U. Studies. XII, 374-460. 

z See ante, pp. 18, 22. 
* Lechford, Plain Dealing, 23. 

5 In the margin of the account of this election in YVinthrop's I 
occur the words "chosen by papers" (I, 132). 



The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 311 

\as extended to the elections of deputies to the general 
ourt. Up to this point the ballot only served the purpose 
>f keeping the freeman's vote a secret from his fellows ; it 
lid not relieve him from the necessity of journeying to the 
apital city to cast his ballot. In a few months, however, 
he natural step was taken of permitting the freemen to cast 
heir votes for company officers in their own towns, and 
ransmit the ballots to the general court at Boston. This 
s what the men of the times called proxy voting, and 
t differed from the system adopted in most of the colonies 
mtside of New England by requiring the transmission of 
he actual ballots to the general returning body, instead of 
'orwarding a mere statement of the votes cast. In March, 
[635-6, it was first applied to six frontier towns to enable 
hem to retain their freemen at home " for the safty of their 
owne." * In a contemplated special election in the follow- 
ng December, this privilege was extended to any of the 
"reemen " if they thinke not fit to come in p'son." 2 In 
March, 1636-7, the court, considering " the greate danger 
& damage that may accrue to the state by all the freemens 
eaveing their plantations to come to the place of elections," 
nade this a permanent order, each freeman having the 
liberty to send his vote " by proxie," and the town deputies 
ivere directed to carry the ballots (proxies) to the meeting 
}f the general court. 3 In 1640 and the following year a 
somewhat reactionary spirit is seen from the democratic 
nethod of " proxing." The candidates for magistrates were 
to be nominated by the deputies and the freemen merely 
given the right to choose among the nominees ; 4 but this 
order was limited to one year and apparently was not ex- 
tended. In 1 64 1 the court proposed a true proxy system 
3f indirect voting, according to which the several towns 
were to choose one elector for each ten freemen, and these 
electors in turn were to make the elections ; 5 but this was 

'Mass. Col. Rec, I, 166. 

' Ibid., 185. Vane having been prevailed upon to remain in the colony, 
the election did not take place (Winthrop, I, 207-208). 

z Ibid., 188. In 1639 the freeman's choice in election between "per- 
son or by proxie" was more definitely stated {ibid., 277). 

4 Ibid., 293. * Ibid., 333- 



312 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

not satisfactory to the freemen, and no action was taken 
upon it. The method of sending to Boston the ballot 
proxies of those who did not attend the court of elect 
in person was continued thereafter with but slight clr 
until the surrender of the charter. After 1643 tne * 
for assistants, 1 but not for the other officers, were given in 
" Indian beanes, the white beanes to manifest election, the 
black for blanks." 2 Later, an attempt was made to do a . 
altogether with the personal attendance of freemen at 
election, and permit the voting only by papers and corn and 
beans in the several towns. This proved unpopular, 3 and 
in November, 1647, ft was changed slightly so that 1 
should " deliver in their votes at y e dores" of the general 
court except those who were made free upon election d 
In 1663, when the admission of freemen upon election 
was prohibited, it was again ordered that none should 
their votes personally at Boston except members of the 
general court. 5 But again the freemen showed their desire 
to attend personally, and within a year the law was repealed. 6 
From this time onward the freeman could attend the general 
court of election in person or he could send his paper ballot 
for the officers, and corn and beans for the assistants. 7 

We must now notice the size of the disfranchised class 
under the church-membership restriction, and shall trace 
the agitation for an extended suffrage until that que- - 
was taken up by the king himself, and English auth< 
w r as brought to bear upon obstinate Massachusetts. Among 

1 Many different plans for the nomination and election of a- 
were tried (see Haynes, op. cit., 400-405). 

2 Mass. Col. Rec., II, 42. The code of 1660 (p. 29) provided that " the 
freemen shall use Indian Corn & Beanes, the Indian Corn to manifest 
Election, the Beanes contrary." 

3 Winthrop, II, 311. 

* Mass. Col. Rec, II, 220. 

6 Ibid., IV, Pt. II, 86. 
8 Ibid., 134. 

7 The order of 1663 is interesting also because it permitted a freem* 
to vote in his town without attending personally at the election. 1 
could " send his vote, sealed vp, in a note directed to the deputy 
tounsmen." An act of 1738 required personal attendance (Session Laws, 
681-683). 



The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 313 

he one hundred and eighteen admitted at the first court 
){ election in 1631 we have noticed that fully one-half were 
nembers of the church; but the new religious qualification 
;oon led to the exclusion of more than one-half of the adult 
nales. Among recent writers we have such expressions as, 
' At no period were the freemen any considerable proportion 
)f the population ;" 1 and " the number of freemen appears 
o have been from one-twentieth to one-tenth of the popula- 
ion." 2 Lechford, writing as early as 1640, asserts that 
hree-fourths of the people were not members of the church 
ind consequently not eligible for the freemanship. 3 A better 
dea of the extent of the franchise can be gained by corn- 
Daring the number of arrivals in the colony with the actual 
idmissions to the freedom of the company. Hutchinson 4 
estimates that by the year 1640 the immigrants numbered 
about 21,200 persons. During the same period 11 48 per- 
sons were admitted as freemen, 5 or about one person in every 
:wenty who entered the limits of the colony. Taking the 
adult males at one-fifth of the population, these figures 
would seem to bear out Lechford's estimate previously 
^iven. Naturally such a restriction, in a new country where 
actual social and economic equality was more closely ap- 
proximated than in England, would lead to discontent 
among the disfranchised and agitation for an extension of 
the suffrage. The disfranchised classes at first appear 
ihrough their occasional illegal action at elections. At 
times they cast ballots in the elections ; 6 at other times they 
were even chosen by the freemen to serve as deputies ; 7 and 
in 1643 tne general court was compelled to order the inflic- 
tion of a fine of ten pounds upon non-freemen who took 
part in elections, as well as upon freemen who cast more 

1 Weeden, in Amer. Antiquarian Society Proceedings, 2d Series, IX, 
348. 

'Ernst, Constitutional History of Boston, 17. 

'Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., 3d Series, III, 73- 

'History, I, 93. 

5 See lists of freemen in Mass. Col. Rec, I, 366-379; New England 
Historical and Genealogical Register, III, passim. 

'Mass. Col. Rec, I, 221; IV, Pt. I, 93', H7- 

'Ibid., I, 174; IV, Pt I, 263. 



314 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

than the legal number of ballots. 1 By 1640 Lechford in 
his ex parte statements could claim that "the most of the 
persons at New-England are not admitted of their Church 
and therefore are not Freemen;" 2 "the people begii 
complain, they are ruled like slaves;" 3 and " it is fea; 
that Elections cannot be safe there long, either in Churcl 
Common-wealth." The growing strength of the feeling 
favor of the disfranchised class is seen in the pn 
made in the general court in March, 1643-4, " for yield 
some more of the freeman's privileges to such as were 
church members that should join in this government." 4 
But the proposal came to naught " for want of opportu 
of meeting, etc." 5 Later in the same year the opposition 
of the ruling parties to the non-freemen is seen in the 
strange refusal of the magistrates to publish their reasons 
for opposing a standing council proposed by the deputies. 8 
Rather than gain popularity among the disfranchised 
classes, although they were largely in the majority, the 
magistrates were willing to have their actions misunder- 
stood by the whole community. 

Two years later, in 1646, the claims of the non-free were 
taken up by a group of agitators who desired to overth: 
the ecclesiastical basis of the state and the extreme con. 
gationalism of the churches, and be " wholly governed by 
the laws of England." 7 A plan was laid for the presenta- 
tion of petitions to the general courts both of Plymouth and 
Massachusetts, 8 and for an appeal to the houses of Parlia- 
ment if the demands should not be granted in Xew England. 

1 Mass. Coll. Rcc, II, 48. 

- Plain Dealing, p. 23, in Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., 3d Series, III. 

3 Ibid., 39. 

'Winthrop, II, 160. 

5 Ibid. Unfortunately, we are not informed what were the reasons 
included in the " etc." 

c They feared that such a publication " would cause a public br<. 
throughout the country," and that the " non-members would certainly 
take part with the magistrates (we should not be able to avoid it), and 
this would make us and our cause, though never so just, obnoxious to 
the common sort of freemen'' (Winthrop, II, 170-171). 

7 Winthrop, II, 261. 8 Hutchinson. History, I, 145- 



The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 315 

The petitioners to the Massachusetts court in May, 1646, 
,vhile expressing their desire for a government according 
;o the laws of England, yet aver that they cannot discern 
mch a form to be in existence in Massachusetts in spite of 
he terms of the charter and the character of the settlers as 
Englishmen. They continue, — 

" Whereas there are many thousands in these plantations, of the 
English nation, freeborne, quiett and peaceable men, righteous in their 
dealings, forward with hand, heart and purse, to advance the publick 
good, knowne friends to the honorable and victorious Houses of Parlia- 
ment, lovers of their nation, &c, who are debarred from all civill im- 
ployments (without any just cause that we know) not being permitted 
to bear the least office (though it cannot be denyed but some are well 
qualifyed) no not so much as to have any vote in choosing magistrates, 
captains or other civill and military officers ; notwithstanding they have 
here expended their youth, borne the burden of the day, wasted much 
of their estates for the subsistence of these poore plantations, paid all 
assessments, taxes, rates, at least equall, if not exceeding others." 

Therefore the petitioners request that 

"civil liberty and freedom be forthwith granted to all truly English, 
equall to the rest of their countrymen, as in all plantations is accus- 
tomed to be done, and as all freeborne enjoy in our native country." 1 

The petitioners, most of whom were Presbyterians, also 
desired that members of the Church of England 2 or Scot- 
land should be admitted to the communion of the New Eng- 
land churches; or, if these civil and religious privileges 
were refused them, that they should be freed from the 
heavy taxes imposed upon them. Should they fail of redress 
in America, the signers of the petition threatened to appeal 
to Parliament, who would, they hoped, "take their sad 
condition into consideration." Their closing sentiments, 
together with this threat, were not likely to gain for the 

Hutchinson, A Collection of Original Papers Relative to the His- 
tory of the Colony of Massachusetts-Bay, Prince Society Reprint, I, 
218-219; Hutchinson, History, I, 145-147. 

2 It will be remembered that at this time Presbyterianism was by act 
of Parliament the lawful religion of England. 



316 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

petitioners the desired rights; in case their prayer should 
be granted, they expressed the hope of seeing 

"the then contemned ordinances of God highly prized; the gospel, 
then dark, break forth as the sun; christian charity, then frozen, 
warm; jealousy of arbitrary government banished; strife and con- 
tention abated; and all business in church and state, which for i 
years had gone backward, successfully thriving." x 



Means were taken by the leaders of the movement to 
spread copies of their petition throughout the colony, in 
neighboring provinces, and even to as distant places as the 
Dutch settlements, Virginia, and the Bermudas. 2 Support 
was found, we are told, mainly among the weaker clas 
Young men and women " are taken with it," 3 and those 
"of a linsey-woolsey disposition; some for prelac 
for Presbytery, and some for Plebsbytery, but all joined 
together in the thing they would, which was to stir up the 
people to dislike of the present government." 4 Later a 
petition addressed to Parliament was drawn up and signed 
by twenty-five non-freemen for themselves and " many 
thousands more." 5 

In a community where such severe measures had been 
taken against the Antinomians and other dissenters ; within 
a body of men who had so boldly transferred their charter 
from England, and who had recently refused to relinquish 
that charter upon the demand of Charles L, — in such a 
community the attitude of the ruling classes towards the 
petitioners was a foregone conclusion. Formal considera- 
tion of the demands of the petition was denied at the time, 
and a law, already drawn up and about to pass, for all 
ing non-freemen equal participation with freemen in all 
town affairs, and perhaps imposing a property qualifica- 
tion upon voters in colonial elections, was also deferred 

1 Hutchinson, History, I, 147. 

2 Palfrey, II, 168. 

"Hutchinson, Papers (Prince Soc), I, 249. 

4 Palfrey, II, 169, note 2, quoting Johnson's Wonder-Working Provi- 
dence, 202. 
6 Hutchinson, History, I, 147. 



The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 317 

intil the next session of the general court. 1 A synod of the 
lergy, however, was called to give more definite form to 
he congregational system. 2 In the meantime the petition- 
:rs continued their popular agitation, and when the court 
net in the fall of 1646 it was in a mood for the thorough 
uppression of the movement. 

The court drew up a long reply to the charges made in 
he petition, showing by parallel columns the similarity 
>etween the English laws and those of Massachusetts ; 3 
ind pointing out twelve false charges made in the petition. 
The petitioners were arraigned as authors of " diverse false 
md scandalous passages in a certain paper . . . against 
he churches of Christ and the civil government here estab- 
ished, derogating from the honor and authority of the same 
md tending to sedition." 4 Later the petitioners were fined 
ind prevented from sailing to England 5 with petitions from 
:he non-freemen. After this the movement gradually sub- 
sided; the leaders were disgraced and soon were scattered 
n England or America. 6 At the election in May, 1647, 
' great laboring there had been by the friends of the peti- 
:ioners to have one chosen governour, who favored their 
:ause. . . . but the mind of the country appeared clearly, 
for the old governour was chosen again, with two or three 
lundred votes more than any other." 7 

But the olive-branch was linked with the sword of com- 
pulsion ; the measure which had been postponed in the pre- 
vious year was taken up again, and while no change was 
made in the colony elections, the proposed extension of the 
suffrage in town affairs was now adopted by the general 
:ourt. An order of September, 1635, had directed that none 
but freemen should have a voice in town affairs, such as the 
receiving of inhabitants and the laying out of town-lots; 8 

'Winthrop, II, 262; the language is slightly ambiguous. 

a Palfrey, II, 170-174. 

'Hutchinson, Papers (Prince Soc), I, 223-247; Winthrop, II, 284. 

4 Palfrey, II, 175. 

5 Winthrop, II, 291 ff. ; Palfrey, II, 176-178. 
•Palfrey, II, 179. 

T Thus modestly does Winthrop refer to his re-election (II, 307)- 
*Mass. Coll. Rec, I. 161. 



318 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colo, 

but the court now took into its consideration " ye usefull 
ptes & abilities of div r s inhabitants amongst us, \v ch are 
freemen." : Accordingly the freemen of the towns were 
empowered to admit any inhabitants, being non- freemen 
the privileges of voting and jury service, if such inhabit 
had taken the oath of fidelity to the government, 
reached the age of twenty-four years, and were not under 
conviction of evil carriage against the government or the 
churches. 2 It is difficult to tell how far the agitation pla 
a part in securing this concession to the non-freemen. V. 
throp mentions an apparently wider reform than this which 
was set aside in May, 1646, because of the popular petition, 8 
and it seems probable that the cause of an extended suffrage 
was injured rather than advanced by the popular appeal 
which had been made. However, the liberty which 
granted, united with the severe measures against the peti- 
tioners, appears to have quieted for a time the popular 
clamor. 

For ten years the records do not show any determined 
effort to extend the franchise, and when a new interest 
shown the attack on the exclusiveness of the freemanship 
was not made upon the political side, as it had been in 1646. 
but upon the ecclesiastical side. We have noticed the 
tempt, about 1636, to extend the suffrage by the organiza- 
tion of new churches composed of those who, on account 
of dissentient view's, could not enter the regular churches. 
The movement was met by a severe method of regulation 
of new churches and by the exclusion from the franc' 
of members of irregularly organized churches. About 1657 
a new attack upon the stronghold of privilege was made 
through the effort to extend the meaning of the term church 
member. From Hartford, in Connecticut, there sprea«: 
the other colonies a controversy as to whether those v. 
had been baptized and still recognized the obligations ( 
baptism were to be accounted members of the church, or, ii 
church-membership came only after evidence of regenera 
tion, acceptance of the applicant by the congregation, 

1 Mass. Coll. Rec, II, 197 (general court of May 26. 1647). 
'Ibid. "Ibid., II. 



The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 319 

:ontinuance in full communion with the church. 1 A synod 
)f Massachusetts and Connecticut ministers meeting in Bos- 
on in June, 1657, permitted what was called the Half-Way 
Covenant. Baptized persons, recognizing their obligations 
ind being of good character, were permitted to bring their 
:hildren to baptism ; but the baptized were not admitted to 
: ull communion, nor, apparently, were they allowed to have 
1 voice in the choice of church officers nor in civil elections 
n Massachusetts. 2 

This solution of the religious question might have intro- 
duced a broader basis for the suffrage in Massachusetts had 
1 political interpretation been given to the synod's decision. 
This was not done, however, and when, upon the proposal 
}f some inhabitants of the county of Middlesex, the general 
:ourt was compelled to decide the question, it gave its 
mthority to the narrower interpretation of the franchise : 

" No Man whatsoever, shall be admitted to the Freedome of this 
Body Politick, but such as are Members of some Church of Christ and 
in full Communion, which they declare to be the true intent of the 
incient Law." 3 

Thus the matter of the suffrage stood when the colony 
altered upon its contest with Charles II. shortly after his 
accession to the throne. 4 

1 Palfrey, II, 487 ; Doyle, Puritan Colonies, II, 192. 

2 Ibid., II, 489. Cp. Haynes, Representation and Suffrage in Mass., 
J. H. U. Studies, XII, 424, with Lauer, Church and State in New Eng- 
land, ibid., X, 140-142. 

3 Code of 1672, 56 ; Mass. Col. Rec, IV, Pt. I, 420. It is interesting 
to notice the retention of this clause in the code of 1672 after the nomi- 
nal extension of the suffrage in 1664. Randolph bases his charge that 
none but church-members can be freemen upon this and another clause, 
both of which were directly opposed to the act of 1664 admitting non- 
church-members (Randolph Papers, Prince Society, II, 293, III, 35)- 

1 Besides requiring the voter to be a communicant of the church, the 
general court, in 1654, had ordered that no man, even a freeman, should 
serve as deputy in the court if he be " unsound in judgment, concerning 
the main points of christian religion as they have been held forth and 
acknowledged by the generality of the Protestant Orthodox writers, 
or that is Scandalous in his conversation, or that is unfaithfull to this 
Government." A fine of five pounds was to be levied upon every free- 
man knowingly making choice of any such person (Code of 1660, 25). 



320 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

There were, however, two cases in which the attitude of 
the Massachusetts general court differed from its unif 
policy towards dissenters; one showing- greater lenie: 
and the other more harshness than was its usual cust 
Instances of the first arise out of political consideration 
connection with the Massachusetts claims to the term 
of New Hampshire and Maine. Under the colonial inter- 
pretation of the charter of 1629 the Massachusetts juri> 
tion included practically all the scattered settlements to 
northward, but the inhabitants of these places were Episco- 
palians, or even religious exiles from Massachusetts. 1 It 
would be unwise as well as hazardous to the claims of M 
sachusetts to attempt to reduce these 7 distant settlement- 
religious conformity as well as political subjection. The 
general court in 1642 accordingly admitted to the freedom 
of the colony all those in the New Hampshire settlements 
who had " liberty of freemen in their severall townes," 
gave them the privilege of sending a deputy to the 00 
" though they bee not at p'sent church members." 2 About 
ten years later, when the Maine settlements were bror 
under the Massachusetts jurisdiction, the inhabitants \. 
given the freedom, although they did not belong to any 
orthodox church. 3 

On the other hand, a strict policy of repression was 
adopted towards Quakers and Baptists, which while 
eluding them from the suffrage as a matter of course, also 
inflicted upon them more severe penalties. In 1647 J ev 
found within the province after being banished were to be 
subject to the death penalty; 4 and in 1653 the penalty of 
disfranchisement was inflicted upon a freeman because he 

1 Winthrop {History, II, 100) says the inhabitants of Gorges' prov- 
ince were not admitted to the New England Confederation because 
"they ran a different course from us both in their ministry and 
administration." 

2 Mass. Col. Rec, II, 29; see for negotiations with the New Hamp- 
shire people, ibid., I, 276, 324-5, 332, 342; II, 5, 41, 43; Palfrey. I. 

587-594. 
'Mass. Col. Rec, IV, Pt. I, 122, 128, 157 ff. ; Hutchinson, History, l 

177. 
* Mass. Col. Rec, II, 193. 



The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 321 

had criticised certain ecclesiastical laws. 1 In the fall of 
1656 the court imposed penalties of whipping, imprison- 
ment, hard labor, and banishment upon Quakers, and almost 
as severe punishments upon those who should defend their 
heretical opinions. 2 In 1663 a more general rule was 
enacted, after experience had proved that there were in the 
colony many enemies " to all government, civil and eccle- 
siasticall, who will not yield obedience to authority, but 
make it much of theire religion to be in opposition thereto/' 3 
Accordingly the church-membership provision was extended 
by requiring all freemen to be not only members of the 
church, but also regular attendants upon the public worship : 

" All persons, Quakers or others, w ch refuse to attend vpon the pub- 
lick worship of God established here, that all such persons, whither 
freemen or others, acting as aforesayd, shall & hereby are made vncapa- 
ble of voting in all civil assemblyes during theire obstinate persisting 
in such wicked wayes & courses, & vntill certificate be given of theire 
reformation." 

From this time onward church attendance was required 
of all freemen, and it is significant that the clause disfran- 
chising those who refused to attend the church was retained 
in the legal code as late as 1672, 4 and was not repealed 
down to the time of the forfeiture of the charter. The 
action against the Baptists, while not leading to the extreme 
of the death penalty, was almost as rigorous as that directed 
against the Quakers. As early as 1644 the sentence of ban- 
ishment was passed against the Baptists, 5 and in 1665 five 
persons were disfranchised for professing the doctrines of 
the Anabaptists. 6 

1 Mass. Col. Rec, IV, Pt. I, 155, 194- 

a Ibid., 277; the death penalty clause came two years later (ibid., 
346). 

8 Ibid., IV, Pt. II, 88-89. 

1 Code of 1672, 48. This was one of the bases of Randolph's claim 
that none but church-members could be freemen (Randolph Papers, II, 
293; HI, 35). 

'Mass. Col. Rec.,Il f 8s- 

*Ibid., IV, Pt. II, 290-291. Later they were ordered to leave the 
colony (ibid., 373) ; but the order was not enforced and the sect shortly 
came to be tolerated (Palfrey, II, 486). 



322 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

Upon the restoration of the Stuart monarchy the 
sachusetts General Court had written, in December, 1660, 
to King Charles II. praying for a continuance of their 
charter. 1 To this address the king sent a favorable reply, 
promising the inhabitants that he would not come behind 
any of his predecessors in a just encouragement of the 
colony, and that they should be partakers in his late pi 
ises of liberty towards tender consciences. 2 In spite of a 
second and still more humble and supplicatory letter from 
the general court, 3 the king, June 28, 1662, was ready to 
suggest changes in the government of New England by 
which members of the Church of England at least should 
be granted political and ecclesiastical privileges. In a letter 
of that date, while again promising protection and grant- 
ing pardon for all offences against himself commr 
in the colony, Charles required and charged the people 
of Massachusetts to grant liberty of conscience to those 
who desired the use of the Book of Common Prayer; he 
directed the colonists to take the oath of allegiance, ordered 
that all justice should be administered in his name, and 
that laws repugnant to his authority should be repealed. 
He then ordered the abolition of the religious qualification 
upon the suffrage. 

" Wee assuring ourself, & obleiging & comanding all person. 1 
concerned, that, in the election of the Gouernor or Asistants, there tx 
only consideration had of the wisdome, virtue, & integrity of the per 
sons to be chosen, & not of any affection wth refference to their opin 
ions & outward professions, & that all the freeholders of competen 
estates, not vitious in conversacon & orthodoxe in religion, (though o 
different persuasions concerning church gouerment,) may haue thei 
votes in the election of all officers, both ciuill & military." 4 

The royal letter caused great disappointment in the colony, 
where the kind words of the king's first letter had led 
colonists to hope for freedom from any English inter 

1 Mass. Col. Rec., IV, Pt. I, 450. 

1 Palfrey, II, 494~495- 

8 Mass. Col. Rec, IV, Pt. II, 32. 

'Ibid., 164; Hutchinson, Papers (Prince Soc), II, 100-104. 

8 Palfrey, II, 528. 



The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 323 

ference. To carry out the king's commands would mean 
the overthrow of the Puritan theocracy; and the authori- 
ties, not openly refusing to obey, temporized with the mat- 
ter. Beyond directing that writs should run in the king's 
name none of the royal orders was immediately executed 
by the general court 1 

The four royal commissioners sent to New England. in 
1664, besides their other duties, 2 were directed to confer 
with the Massachusetts government on the king's letter of 
1662 and to obtain a more reasonable compliance with its 
demands. 3 The commissioners' instructions were explicit 
upon this point. 4 The king deemed it "very scandalous" 
that any man should be debarred from the practice of re- 
ligion according to English laws by those who had been 
given liberty to adopt what profession they pleased in re- 
ligion ; he now demanded, 

" in a word, that persons of good & honest conversation who have lived 
long there may enjoy all y e priviledges ecclesiasticall & civill w ch are 
due to them, and w cn are enjoyed by oth r s, a s to choose and be chosen 
into places of government & the like; and that differences in opinion 
doe not lessen their charity to each other, since charity is a fundamental 
in all religion." 

With these instructions upon the suffrage question the com- 
missioners arrived in Boston in July, 1664. 5 

*In May, 1663, however, a committee of magistrates, deputies, and 
elders was appointed to " consider the perticulars relating to extending 
the liberty of certeine of the inhabitants in point of elections;" and 
any of the elders or freemen were privileged to hand to the committee 
their advice in writing upon the subject, in order that something might 
be agreed upon " if it be the will of God, that may be satisfactory and 
safe, as best conducing to his glory and this peoples felicity." No action 
appears to have been taken by this committee, and Massachusetts had 
made no further compliance with the king's commands when the royal 
commissioners reached Boston in the summer of 1664 (Mass. Col. Rec, 
IV, Pt. II, 74). 

'For general accounts of the commission see Palfrey, II, 574-634; 
Doyle, Puritan Colonies, II, 140-152; Deane, The Puritan Age, 502- 
520. 

*New York Colonial Documents, III, 61-63. 

'Ibid., 51; 57-61. 6 Palfrey, II, 579- 



324 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

A few days after their arrival the general court met in 
special session and, at last alive to the necessity of s- 
compliance with the royal demands, passed an act for the 
extension of the suffrage to non-church-members. This 
law, so famous for its formal compliance with the king's 
letter, and for its practical disobedience of his comman 
is as follows : 

" This Court doth Declare, That the Law prohibiting all per> 
except Members of Churches, and that also for allowance of them, in 
any County Court, are hereby Repealed. 

" And do also Order and Enact, That from henceforth all English 
men, presenting a Certificate under the hands of the Ministers or U 
ister of the place where they dwell, that they are Orthodox in Relie 
and not vicious in their lives, and also a Certificate under the hand 
the Select Men of the place, or of the major part of them, that they are 
Free holders, and are for their own proper Estate (without heads of 
persons) rateable to the Country in a single Country Rate, after the 
usual manner of valuation in the place where they live, to the full value 
of ten shillings, or that they are in full Communion with some church 
among us ; It shall be in the liberty of all and every such person or 
persons, being twenty-four years of age, Householders and settled 
Inhabitants in this Jurisdiction, from time to time to present them- 
selves and their desires to this Court for their admittance to the Free- 
dome of this Common-wealth, and shall be allowed the privilidg- 
have such their desire propounded, and put to vote in the General 
Court, for acceptance to the Freedome of the Body politick, by the 
sufferage of the major part, according to the Rules of our Patent" 1 

By this act the church-membership restriction was tech- 
nically abolished, but a mere list of the requirements im- 
posed upon those who desired admission under the tei 
of the act, and not being in communion with some church, 
shows how very slightly was the door to the freeman - 
left ajar. The applicant must be ( i ) twenty-four years of 
age, (2) a settled inhabitant (regularly admitted by some 
town), (3) a householder, (4) a freeholder, (5) a pa 
of taxes upon property, (6) orthodox in religion, (7) not 
vicious in life; (8) he must present a certificate from all 
the ministers of his town proving his religious and m 
qualifications, (9) and a certificate from the majority 0) 

1 Code of 1672, 56; Mass. Col. Rec, IV, Pt. II, 118. 



The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 325 

the selectmen of his town that he was a freeholder and a tax- 
payer to the amount of ten shillings, not including his poll- 
tax; and (10) finally, he must be accepted by the vote of 
the majority of the general court. Yet, said the court, in a 
letter to the king in October, 1664, this was the "utmost" 
they could do to satisfy his majesty and still retain con- 
sistency " with conscience of our duty towards God, & the 
just libertyes & priviledges of our patent." 1 Even after 
several persons had been admitted to the freedom under this 
plan, it was but natural that the royal commissioners should 
consider it merely a subterfuge by which " they might 
evade the King's letter in that poynt." 2 

Finding that the law of 1664 would not give the exten- 
sion of the suffrage which they had expected, in February, 
1664-5, tne commissioners asked the general court to invite 
all the inhabitants of the colony to come up to the annual 
elections in the following May. 3 When the court refused to 
call the people together, the commissioners even resorted to 
the means of writing letters to non-freemen in the country, 
asking them to attend the election. 4 In spite of all their 
efforts, the commissioners were unsuccessful in arousing 
the popular clamor which they hoped would overawe the 
oligarchy. The assembly did not change its attitude except, 
if anything, to become more independent. In the corre- 
spondence between the court and the commissioners the 
former asserted that the oath of allegiance was adminis- 
tered, and that justice ran in the king's name. They quietly, 
but firmly, refused to grant the use of the Prayer-Book or 
" haue the same set vp here : we conceive it is apparent that 
it will disturbe our peace in our present enjoyments." 5 
They even had the audacity to declare that they had con- 
formed to the king's request in the matter of the suffrage : 

" Touching civil libertjes. 
"To elect or be elected, vnto civil offices, the quallifications men- 
tioned in his majestjes letter, being orderly euidenced to us, are ac- 
cepted, as may appeare by our late lawe & practise therevpon ." 

1 Mass. Col. Rec, IV, Pt. II, 129. 

J A'. Y. Col. Doc, III, 84. 'Mass. Col. Rec, IV, Pt. II, 173. 

4 Ibid., 174. s Ibid., 200. 



326 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

This reply called forth a sarcastic rejoinder from the com- 
missioners, in which they expressed admiration for those 
who came to America to establish liberty of conscience, and 
later denied it to others, in order that their own enjoyments 
might not be disturbed. 1 Their opinions upon the new 
freemanship law were not hidden in sarcasm : 

" You have so tentered the kings quallifications as in making him 
only who payeth ten shillings to a single rate to be of competent estate, 
that when the king shall be enformed, as the trueth is, that not one 
church member in an hundred payes so much, & y* in a towne of an 
hundred inhabitants, scarse three such men are to be found, wee feare 
the king will rather finde himself deluded then satisfied by your late 
act." 

The commissioners now took up the printed law-book of 
1660 and advised over a score of changes in it. In these 
suggestions they no longer speak for the whole body of dis- 
senters or non-church-members, but they are content tu 
that the restriction upon freemen be so changed that it will 
comprehend members of the Church of England. 2 The 
last features of the controversy are the report of the com- 
missioners concerning Massachusetts 3 and a narrative 
drawn up by the general court recounting the facts of their 
intercourse with the commissioners. 4 Neither of these adds 
anything to the suffrage controversy ; the court claimed it 
had repealed the obnoxious freemanship law, while the com- 
missioners again alleged that the new act was of no value, 
its practical effect being to retain the old religious limitation. 

Having seen the controversy between the commissioners 
and the court about the act of 1664, we may now look at 
such facts as illustrate the administration of this law. The 
terms of the law seem designed to keep out rather than admit 
to the suffrage those who were not members of some regu- 
lar church. Bearing in mind the uncompromising character 
of the New England ministers, it would seem to be aln 

1 Mass. Col. Rec., IV, Pt. II, 204-205. 
*Ibid., 210 ff. 

3 N. Y. Col. Doc, III, 110-113; Hutchinson, Papers (Prince Soc). 
II, 146-147- 
'Mass. Col. Rec., IV, Pt. II, 218 ff. 



The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 327 

impossible for a person not belonging to the church to 
obtain a certificate of orthodoxy in religion from the min- 
isters of his town. But even if this were possible, there were 
still the inhabitancy, the householder, the freeholder, and the 
tax-paying qualifications to be met by the applicant, in addi- 
tion to the age requirement of twenty-four years. Of these 
qualifications the most difficult, next to the religious one, 
was that requiring the candidate for the f reemanship "to pay 
at least ten shillings, besides the poll-tax, in a single country 
rate. It is not easy to-day to catch the meaning of this tax 
qualification. The unit of taxation was a levy of one penny 
on the pound of all real and personal property, 1 and this 
was called a rate ; when one rate did not yield a sufficient 
income, several, even twenty, might be laid. 2 A man paying 
ten shillings taxes at the rate of one penny on the pound 
would possess one hundred and twenty pounds value of 
taxable property. Such an amount was an unusual pos- 
session at that time and for many years afterwards, and in 
the colony at large the statement of the royal commission- 
ers may have been near the truth, that " not one church 
member in an hundred payes so much," and "in a towne 
of an hundred inhabitants, scarce three such men are to be 
found." 3 

Several tax-lists for the town of Boston are extant for 
the years 1674, 1676, and 1687, 4 which throw some light 
upon the amount of assessed property held by citizens of that 
town. The list of 1674 5 shows ninety-nine persons out 
of six hundred and seventy-four as paying ten shillings or 
more upon a single country rate. An incomplete list for 
1676 6 gives forty out of one hundred and ninety-seven 
male taxables as possessing one hundred and twenty pounds 

1 The Book of the General Lavves and Libertyes, 1660, 14; Code of 
1672, 22-26. The laws, unfortunately, do not give a fixed valuation of 
land as was the case in Connecticut, but only of domestic animals. 

'Laws of New Hampshire (1904), I, Province Period, 1679-1702, 
335, 367, 433, 450. 

'Mass. Col. Rec., IV, Pt. II, 204-205. 

* First Report of the Record Commissioners of the City of Boston, 
1876, 22-133. 

'Ibid., 22-59. *Ibid., 6^-67. 



328 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

or more of taxable property. These lists show a far larger 
proportion of people possessing the property qualification 
than the commissioners claimed ; one person in five or seven 
is very different from the three in a hundred claimed by the 
commissioners' report. 1 The list for 1687, 2 however, vai 
considerably from the earlier one, and shows a gem 
lowering of the assessment values. Out of twelve hundred 
and thirty male tax-payers in that year, only thirty-four 
persons were rated for ten shillings or over. This brings 
up quite close to the commissioners' estimate of one in 
thirty-three of the population. The facts given in these lists 
show that the tax-paying qualification at best would haw 
included only a small proportion of the population of Boston. 
But the best testimony to the strictness of the new law 
is to be seen in the few cases of freemen admitted upon 
certificate. In the fall of 1664 six persons were given their 
freedom upon presenting certificates that they were qualified 
according to the law ; 3 but this comparatively good begin- 
ning was not maintained, and from 1665 to 1680 inch 1 , 
only fourteen cases of such admissions have been noted. 4 
It is not, of course, certain that the records have expressly 
stated all the cases where certificates were presented, and it 
is possible that others of the recorded admissions may have 
been upon certificate and no mention made of the fact. But, 
looking no farther than the face of the records, it is apparent 
that only about twenty persons were admitted to the free- 
manship under the new law. 5 Had the number of persons 

1 Allowance must be made for the wealth of Boston and also for the 
fact that these lists very likely did not include all those taxed on the 
polls alone; probably the country districts would show a much lower 
proportion of qualified persons than these lists give for Boston. 

2 First Report of the Record Commissioners of the City of Boston, 
1876, 91-133. 

z Mass. Col. Rec., IV, Pt. II, 134. 
4 Ibid., 145, 146, 285, 408; V, 264, 279. 

B One of these certificates has been preserved in Mass. Hist. 
Proc., 1st Series, XII, 105: 

" Certificate of John Wilson and Hezekiah Usher. 
" These do testifie vnto the honoured Gen. Court y* m r John 
Tuttle, William Hasie, and Benjamin Muzzie of Boston — 



The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 329 

so admitted been much greater, it is inconceivable that the 
Massachusetts agents later, in justifying their course before 
the Committee of Trade and Plantations, would have used 
no stronger word than " several" in describing the number 
of non-church-members who had been made free. 1 It seems 
highly probable that the new qualification was used only as 
a means of evading the king's instructions, 2 and did not 
result in any appreciable extension of the suffrage. 3 

After the contest with the royal commissioners the colony 
entered upon a period of ten years of political peace and 

Rumnie marsh, are vpon Good testimony of others, and my 
owne knowledge or experience both orthodox in the Christian 
Religion, and of unblameable conversation, as I do believe, and 
doe humbly comend them therefore vnto the Acceptance of the 
hon. Court, into the Society and Companie of our freemen, 
according as they expresse their desires therevnto, and Aymes 
at the Common Good therein. JoHN WlLg0N Seniqr 

"2<* d. of the 3m. 65. 

"Mr John Tuttle, William Hasie and Benjamin Muzzie, are 
raiteable acording to the Law made for admitance of Free- 
men: 2.: May 1665. Hezekiah Vsher." 

1 Randolph Papers, Prince Society, II, 283, III, 8. 

2 N. Y. Col Doc, III, 84. 

3 It must be noted, however, that the total number of admissions 
to the freemanship— presumably all church-members except the twenty 
already mentioned— was considerably greater in the years succeeding 
1664 than in those immediately preceding, as the following figures 
show: 

1645-1649 admissions were 230 



1650-1654 


" 146 


1655-1659 


" 64 


I 660-1 664 


" 48 


1665-1669 


" 305 


1670-1674 


" 415 


1675-1679 


" 271 


1680-1684 


" 397 



The writer at first supposed that this increase in freemen was due to 
the new law, but later investigation disclosed no connection between 
this number of freemen and the law of 1664. 



33° The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

ecclesiastical quiet. The attitude towards the Quakers and 
other dissenters had changed somewhat, so far as religious 
tolerance was concerned, but this lessening severity did not 
extend to the admission of the non-conformists to the free- 
manship. When, in 1670, a request came from the county 
of York (Maine), — one of the places whose freemen had 
been admitted without reference to church-membership, — 
that the number of their freemen be increased, they received 
the reply, — 

" this Court declares, y* it is the best expedient to obteine the ends de- 
sired that those parts furnish themselves w th an able, pious, & ortho- 
dox minister, & commend that to them, according to the order of the 
County Court." 1 

Such language gives slight evidence of a compliance with 
the king's desires, and it shows that the only practical \ 
of making freemen was still that established by the law 
1 63 1. A similar vigilance is seen in the attempt to abolish 
election mistakes, frauds, and deceits in 1673, 2 and in the 
order of the same year that those who were desirous of 
becoming freemen under the act of 1664 should be proposed 
at one annual court of election and the question of their 
admission not put to a vote until the following year. 3 

After ten years of comparative quiet upon the suffrage 
question, the matter was taken up anew by the English 
government, and the interference from England was aided 
by the vehemence and persistency of the English agent in 
the colonies. Edward Randolph was not a man of states- 
manlike character, nor, indeed, was his mission one which 
required such qualities ; he was rather a political detective, 
who, for the use of the English authorities, ferreted out the 
political irregularities of the Massachusetts commonwealth. 
With the many topics of dispute — the Maine and N 
Hampshire question, the enforcement of the navigation acts, 
the judicial and oath controversies — we are not here con- 

1 Mass. Col. Rec, IV, Pt. II, 452. 

2 Ibid., 553- 

8 Ibid., 562. This act was repealed ten years later (ibid., V, 385)- * 
have found no evidence in the records to show the reason for the act 



The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 331 

cerned ; and our account of Randolph must be limited to his 
attitude towards the suffrage question. 1 

Almost immediately upon his arrival in New England he 
found evidences of the irregularities which it was his busi- 
ness to discover, and which undoubtedly did exist. In June, 
1676, he writes that the officers of the colony are mainly 
" inconsiderable Mechanicks ;" that confiding church-mem- 
bers are alone capable of election ; and that the clergy gen- 
erally are inclined to sedition, although some " Civil Gen- 
tlemen" abominate "the Hypocrisy of their Pharisaicall 
Sanhedrim." 2 By the following October he did not deal 
in such generalities, but now stated that no one could be 
admitted a freeman or have any vote unless he were a 
church-member in full communion. He had now discov- 
ered that the oaths of supremacy and allegiance were not 
taken, but that an oath of fidelity was imposed upon all 
persons under penalty of a fine for refusal ; he believed he 
saw that the freemen made only one-sixth of the male 
population, and that only interest and design had drawn 
most of the people into church-membership. 3 

Randolph's letters were considered by the Committee of 
Trade and Plantations in England, who thought the colony 
had technically abolished its earlier freeman law at the 
demand of the king, but that the practice all along had 
been in accordance with the earlier narrow custom. 4 The 
agents of Massachusetts were called in to explain the con- 
duct of the colony, and they replied that they knew of no 
such practice; "that several are freemen who are not 
Church-members, and that 'tis not the point of opinion in 
Religion, but the number or defect of Votes, that prefers 
one and lays by others." 5 In April, 1678, Randolph was 
back in England, laying his charges before the committee. 
The Massachusetts agents offered to show that his charges 
were falsehoods, 6 but Randolph replied by quoting their 
own law-book of 1672, and at the request of the lords of the 
committee he read the laws refusing freemanship to all not 

: For an elaborate account of Randolph, see the Prince Society's 
edition of the Randolph Papers, I ; and Palfrey, III, 280-397. 
2 Randolph Papers, II, 206, 207. 

3 Ibid., 226, 235. 'Ibid., 281. 

'Ibid., 283. ' 6 Ibid., 285. 



332 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

in full communion with some orthodox church and forbid- 
ding any person from voting who was not an attendant 
upon the established public worship. 1 The committee were 
much impressed by Randolph's case; they seemed " 
much to resent" the action of Massachusetts, and instead 
of favoring the colony they expressed the opinion that 
" the whole matter ought seriously to be considered from 
the Very Root." 2 

Later the colony agents replied to the iterated statements 3 
of Randolph respecting the limited suffrage. Although 
charter they had absolute power to admit any freemen they 
saw fit, yet, they aver, an express law had been made by 
which " others besides churchmembers are capacitated to be 
made ffreemen, upon which law severall considerable per- 
sons have been admitted, & any others may be from tyme to 
tyme, if they please to offer themselves." 4 But such replies 
were justly held to be subterfuges, and failed to sat 
either Randolph or the English authorities when all were 
looking for points of attack upon Massachusetts. Ran- 
dolph, back again in America, wrote in 1679 m favor of a 
broad extension of the franchise by admitting as freemen 
all inhabitants who had taken the oath of allegiance, and 
excluding from the suffrage or office all refusing to take the 
oath. 5 Such a radical change was not adopted by the Eng- 
lish committee, but in May, 1679, tne v advised the king 
to direct " that there bee noe other distinction in making 
Freemen than that they bee men of competent Estates 
ratable at ten shillings, according to the Law of the place," i 
and this feature was shortly afterwards incorporated into a 
royal letter to the general court. 7 The court later replu 

1 Randolph Papers, II, 293. I do not know whether it was intentional 
or not that these laws were permitted to stand in the law-book of I 
after the passage of the freeman act of 1664. 

2 Ibid., 296. *Ibid., 311, 3*3, 3*8- 
'Ibid., Ill, 8. "Ibid., 35. 

6 Ibid., 45- 

'Hutchinson, Papers (Prince Society), II, 259. Hutchinson, in a 
foot-note, says, " They seem to have held out till the last in refusing 
to admit" those who were not church-members or did not obtain a 
certificate from the minister of the town. 

"June 11, 1680; Mass. Col. Rec., V, 287, 288. 



The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 333 

that no person was incapacitated for the freemanship who 
was a freeholder, ratable to the value of ten shillings, not 
vicious in life, and also orthodox in religion; and they 
expressly stated — for the first time — that to be of a different 
opinion upon matters of external worship, and particularly 
to desire to worship according to the rules of the Church 
of England, was not the form of heterodoxy which their 
law provided against. This is the most liberal statement 
on the subject which I have found; but even this shows no 
intention to make the property qualification of the non- 
church-members any lower than the extreme requirements 
of 1664. A perfectly frank statement would have said that 
these strict property conditions were not applied to " Con- 
gregational men," but only to those not in communion with 
the established churches. 

In the midst of the attacks upon the company's charter 
there appears to be no intention on the part of the colonial 
leaders of changing the suffrage conditions. In August, 
1682, when Randolph was again writing against the in- 
fluence of the Independent ministers, 1 the Massachusetts 
agents in London were reiterating their usual part-truth, 
"There is noe other distinction vsed in makeing of ffree- 
men Then that they be ffreeholders of Tenn Shillings ratable 
Estate, and of the Protestant Religion." 2 Even after the 
court learned how sharply the proceedings against the colony 
were being pushed in England, the agents were instructed : 3 

"It being of the essentialls in our charter to vse our owne liberty 
wth respect to freemen, this Court hauing repealed that law that 
appointed a yeares probation, so as now wee haue fully complyed with 
his majetfes former letters and comands in this matter, yow are not to 
make any alteration of the quallifications that are required by law as 
at present established." 

Up to the last the form of political qualification which, in 
spite of all denials, actually favored church-members was 

1 Randolph Papers, III, 186, 187. 

'Ibid., 192. In February, 1682-3, the general court repealed the law 
requiring applicants for freedom who were not members of the church 
to undergo a year's probation before acceptance into the corporation; 
but this was as far as they would go (Mass. Col. Rec, V, 385). 

'March 30, 1683; Mass. Col. Rec, V, 389. 



334 The Stiff rage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

upheld by those directing the policy of the colony. The 
overthrow of the religious system did not come until the 
company's charter was declared forfeited by the English 
Court of Chancery in 1684, and all political activity under 
the charter ceased two years later by the appointment of a 
president and sixteen councillors for Massachusetts, N 
Hampshire, Maine, and the King's Province. 1 Thereafter, 
until the overthrow of the government of Andros in the 
spring of 1689, Massachusetts was without any popular 
elections except those in the towns for local officers. 

It would be interesting, if possible, to determine the num- 
ber of freemen in Massachusetts immediately before the 
revocation of the charter, but it is doubtful if the material 
exists for an exact account. Palfrey estimates the freemen 
as numbering between one thousand and twelve hundred 
persons in 1670; 2 another writer believes the freemen made 
up about one-fifteenth of the entire population in 1679; 5 
while Randolph, writing in 1682, states that there were 
eighteen hundred freemen, 4 and that they made up less than 
one-eighth of the (male?) inhabitants. 5 At an election for 
the nominations of magistrates in 1676, under the code 
1672, 6 each freeman voted for eighteen persons; and the 
highest number of votes cast was thirteen hundred and 
twenty, for John Leverett. 7 This would show that there 
were at least thirteen hundred freemen, and probably con- 
siderably more than that figure. It is not likely that every 
freeman gave one of his eighteen votes for Leverett, nor is 
it probable that every freeman took part in the nomination 
for magistrates. To place the number of freemen in 1676 
at about fifteen hundred would, therefore, not seem an 
over-estimate. Votes for the nomination of magistrates in 
1683 and 1686 8 show a smaller number of freemen par- 
ticipating than in 1676, a result perhaps to be attributed to 

1 Palfrey, III, 484. 

3 New England, III, 41, note 3. 

3 Ernst, Constitutional History of Boston, 17. 

* Randolph Papers, Prince Society, III, 172, 173. 

6 Ibid., 186, 187. 

6 Code of 1672, 47. 

7 New Hampshire Hist. Soc. Coll., Ill, 99. 

8 Hutchinson, Papers (Prince Society), II, 282, 285. 



The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 335 

the uncertainty concerning the company charter in the later 
years. 1 Taking these several instances, it appears that about 
thirteen hundred freemen actually participated in the annual 
nominations for magistrates. The population of the colony, 
at the lowest estimate, was twenty-five thousand in 1670; 
and allowing for the increase in population in the following 
years, we shall not be far wrong if we count the voting 
freemen as one-twentieth of the entire population, or one- 
fourth or one-fifth of the adult males. 2 

With the seizure and arrest of Andros and his associates 
in April, 1689, the popular forms of government were re- 
stored. It was not, indeed, thought best to have an election 
for colony officers in May, but delegates to conventions were 
elected by the several towns; and the second convention 
agreed to a policy similar to that adopted in the other 
colonies of New England, — that of restoring to office the 
magistrates who had been deposed by the recent coercive 
measures of James II. 3 Later the convention became bolder, 
taking the name of general court, and in the spring of 1690 
providing for a regular colonial election. 4 

At an early point in the revolution against Andros there 
are indications of a change in sentiment upon the suffrage 
question. The charter officers were restored and the old 
forms revived, but the struggle with the Stuarts and their 
governors had brought the freemen and non-freemen more 
closely together. A broadside, evidently printed before the 
political question had been solved in May, 1689, expressed 
the opinion that the officers elected in 1686 would have the 
power and will " to take in Free men under qualifications 
of Sobriety, and some Interest in the Country by Estate." 5 
In February, 1689-90, when the determination to hold an 
election in May had been reached, a change in the suffrage 

*In 1683 there were 26, and in 1686, 32 nominees. Adding together 
the votes for all of these and dividing by eighteen, the number for 
which each voter could ballot, and taking it for granted that each 
freeman did vote for eighteen, it appears that there were 1260 voters in 
1683 and 1305 in 1686. 

2 Compare Palfrey, III, 41, note 3. 

'Ibid., 589. 

* New Hampshire Provincial Laws ( 1004) , I, 349. 353- 

'Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc, 1st Series, XII, 118, 119. 



336 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

qualifications was also adopted by which the old require- 
ment of a minister's certificate was abolished, and a o 
paratively low property or tax-paying qualification imposed : 

" It is Ordered by this Court, That the Clause in the Law title 1 
men, referring to Ministers giving Certificate to Persons Desiring their 
Freedom, be and hereby is repealed, And the Sum of Ten shillings is 
reduced to ffour shillings in a Single Country Rate (without heads of 
Persons) Or that the Person to be made free have houses or Lands of 
the Cleer Yearly Value of Six Pounds Freehold w'ch Value is to be 
returned to the Court by the Select men of the Place, or the Major 
part of them who also are to Certify that such Person is not vk 
in Life." 1 

The effect of this act was not to repeal the clause under 
which since 1631 adult male church-members had been ad- 
mitted to the freemanship, but to lower the restrictions 
imposed by the act of 1664 upon the admission of those v 
were not members of the church. 

There is abundant proof that the act of February, 
1689-90, resulted in an immediate extension of the fran- 
chise. The records of the court 2 in the few succeeding 
weeks give the names of nine hundred and nine new free- 
men. 3 This figure becomes significant when it is noted that 
the number of freemen admitted during the two months of 
March and April, 1690, was greater than the entire number 
of admissions in the twelve years from 1674 to 1686 under 
the old charter and suffrage provisions. Of the new admis- 
sions it is also interesting to notice that over half — four 
hundred and ninety-three — were plainly admitted by virtue 
of the new property and tax-paying qualifications, while 
only two hundred and ninety-three were accepted because 
of their church-membership; and of the remaining ones. 

1 New Hampshire Provincial Laws, I, 355 ; New England Historical 
and Genealogical Register, III, 346 ; Sewall's Diary in Mass. Hist. Soc. 
Coll., 6th Series, I, 107. The income qualification of this act required 
non-church-members to possess an income from freehold three time> 
as great as that required by the English forty-shilling qualification. 

2 The legislative records of the Inter-charter period have recently 
been published in Vol. I of the New Hampshire Laws, Provincial 
Period. 

3 Ibid., 363-471 passim. 



The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 337 

the basis for whose admission is not stated in the records, 
it is probable that a majority also came in under the terms 
of the new law. The revolutionists in Massachusetts, like 
Leisler in New York, granted an extension of the suffrage 
in order to strengthen their cause; but in the former colony 
they still retained the favoritism shown to the members of 
the church. It was not until the passing of the new charter 
of 1 69 1 under the royal seals that the suffrage was estab- 
lished uniformly upon a property basis, and the peculiar 
political privileges of the church-members, after sixty years 
of practice, were at last abolished. A man's political rights, 
for the future, were to rest upon the ownership of wealth, 
not upon the possession of an orthodox Christian character. 
The ideal of the founders was a noble one, but two facts 
in the English world of the time made the attainment of the 
ideal impossible. The first of these facts was the lack of 
religious homogeneity in the English nation, and the grow- 
ing toleration which came in spite of all the adverse legisla- 
tion of the Cavalier Parliament. The religious restrictions 
imposed by Massachusetts were more far-reaching than 
those in England, and came into conflict with the less severe 
policy of the Stuarts. The second fact is to be seen in the 
anomaly of disfranchising members of the Church of Eng- 
land in an English colony. The English Parliament had 
indeed attempted to prevent non-conformists from voting 
in English elections, but it was not the more likely to relish 
the disfranchisement of Episcopalians by a non-conformist 
English colony. Had church-membership in New England 
carried with it orthodoxy in the English sense, it is possible 
the home government would not so strongly have opposed 
the religious qualifications; but the exclusion of Episco- 
palians from political power was as obnoxious to the Eng- 
lishman of 1 69 1 as it had been in the days of Charles I. and 
Charles II. 

II. The Plymouth Colony. 

Plymouth colony is the first of the many New England 
settlements whose political organization may be called in- 
digenous; not in the sense that the type of government 
founded was un-English, but that it had no organic or legal 

22 



338 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

connection with the English government. Within the 
limits of every one of the New England colonies there 
appeared bands of settlers who had voluntarily united 
purposes of settlement, and who were compelled by force of 
circumstances to form political associations. The most cele- 
brated of such associations is that formed on board the 
Mayflower on November u, 1620. The Pilgrims v. 
already united by social and religious ties, and in their joint 
endeavors to defray the cost of the expedition they had 
formed a quasi-corporation of an economic nature. But 
the political organization which should have been den 
from the Virginia Company, upon whose land they intended 
to settle, was of no value when the Pilgrims found them- 
selves many miles away from the lands of the Virginia 
Company, and with no possibility of reaching the place of 
their intended settlement. The political consequences of the 
mistake of selecting so northern a settlement were seized 
upon at once by " some of the strangers amongst them.'" 
who in " discontented & mutinous speeches" asserted that 
they would " use their owne libertie" on shore, and that 
there was none who had power to command them. 1 
curb such spirits, and also because it was felt that a political 
association of the colonists would be as " finne as 
patent, and in some respects more sure," the Mayfii 
compact was composed and signed. 

The words of this document are known to almost even 
American, but no excuse need be given for repeating hert 
the political phrases of the compact. The subscribers agret 
that they do 

" by these presents solemnly & mutualy in ye presence of God, and on< 
of another, covenant & combine our selves togeather into a civill bod} 
politick, for our better ordering & preservation & furtherance 1 
ends aforesaid ; and by vertue hearof to enacte, constitute, and franv 
such just & equall lawes, ordinances, acts, constitutions, & offices, fron 
time to time, as shall be thought most meete & convenient for y* gen 
erall good of y e Colonie, unto which we promise all due submit 
and obedience." 2 

1 Bradford, History of Plymouth Plantation. 53. 

2 Ibid., 54. 



The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 339 

Under this association the government of Plymouth colony 
was administered for over seventy years. The patent from 
the Council for New England, obtained in 1621, gave a 
legal title to the land so unexpectedly occupied, but it did 
little more in a political way than to confirm the existing 
government. The self-incorporating body by this patent 
attained legal position, but no real change was made in 
the administration of government in the little colony. 
Bradford's anticipation that the personal compact would 
be " more sure" than any patent later received its justi- 
fication, for no colonial political organization of the 
seventeenth century had as long a lease of life as did 
the government inaugurated so humbly in the Mayflozver 
cabin. 

Funds for the transportation of the Pilgrims had been 
obtained by the formation of a stock company in London, 
composed of certain capitalists and the emigrants. The 
shares were placed at ten pounds, and any free man going 
to the colony was entitled to one share without making a 
money subscription. 1 Perhaps one-quarter or one-fifth of 
the stock of the undertaking was represented by shares 
issued in this way to the settlers; the remainder of the 
capital — that is, four-fifths of seven thousand pounds — was 
furnished by London capitalists. 2 All the property of the 
enterprise was to be held in common, and at the end of 
seven years was to be distributed pro rata among the stock- 
holders, both in England and the colony. In 1623 the 
London adventurers sent out some colonists who were not 
incorporated into the organization as stockholders, but who 
came out at their own risk and expense, and hence did not 
form a part of the communistic enterprise. These " par- 
ticulars" were " yet to be subjecte to y e generall Govern- 
ment," 3 although not sharing in the common duties or 
advantages. 4 While subject to the laws and regulations 
of the colony, it does not appear that these " particulars" 

1 Bradford, 28, 29. 

2 Doyle, Puritan Colonies, I, 42. 
'Bradford, 100. 

'Ibid., 104, 123. 



34-0 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colon 

had any share in elections or government; and it is nt 
be wondered that they formed a discontented faction. 1 

These conditions, together with the desertion of some 
from the " generality" to the " particular" state, and the 
fear of the rapidly approaching time when all prop 
must be distributed share and share alike, led to the | 
posal on the part of the colonist stockholders to purchase 
the shares of the London capitalists. Accordingly, in 1626, 
a contract was executed 2 for the extinction of the clai 
of the Londoners. The purchase outright by the coloi 
gave them entire control of the property of the colony, and 
permitted them to admit to their membership new proprie- 
tors upon their own terms. The effect upon the co; 
was much the same as that which followed the transfer 
the Massachusetts charter to New England; it rem< 
the directing power in the colony's affairs from England 
to America and identified the economic trading comj' 
activity with the political organization. The purchase led 
to another development, — an extension of the franchise in 
the colony. 

Up to this point the community of goods and of political 
privileges, based respectively, as we have seen, upon the 
commercial contract made in London and upon the civil 
compact made on the Mayflower, was limited to those \ 
became stockholders of the enterprise. Now that the colon) 
had achieved self-ownership, the stockholder theory was 
abandoned, but simply extended to include all the respon- 
sible inhabitants, whether they were " particulars" 01 
the " generality." The attitude of the colony was a mor< 
liberal one than that adopted in Massachusetts four year 
later. " For sundrie reasons," which, unfortunately, Brad 
ford does not enumerate, it was determined to admit " into 
this partnership" all heads of families and those free singl' 
young men who were able to govern themselves and thei 
affairs, and accordingly " be helpfull in y e comone-welth.'' 
Each free single man was to receive one share, and head 
of families were given one share for themselves and fo 

1 Palfrey, I, 219; Bradford, 123. 

-Ibid., 143, 144- *Ibid., I 



The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 341 

each person in their families. Upon this basis the lands, 
houses, and cattle were divided, and incidentally political 
privileges were now conferred upon many who previously 
as "particulars" did not participate in the government. 
Thus the inhabitants acquired possession of the lands of the 
colony; and partnership in the economic sense, which at 
first seemed the stronger of the bonds uniting the settlers, 
gradually gave place under the extension of private owner- 
ship of lands to .the more modern feeling of political asso- 
ciation. 1 

The new patent from the Council for New England, 
obtained in January, 1629-30, empowered Bradford and 
his heirs, associates, and assigns to incorporate themselves 
and the inhabitants of the colony under " some usual or fit 
name and title," and to make ordinances and constitutions 
for themselves, not contrary to the laws of England or to 
any frame of government established by the Council. 2 But 
this patent, like the earlier one, simply placed the duty of 
organizing the government upon the settlers, and left the 
Mayflower compact and the partnership arrangement of 
1627 as the real bases of government. 

By the codification of 1636 and the legislation of the two 
succeeding years, the civil and constitutional organization 
of the colony is evident for the first time. The class of 
freemen is now distinct; they are to meet annually for the 
purpose of electing the governor, assistants, constables, and 
other inferior officers, 3 and are subject to a fine for absence 
from election or refusal to hold office. 4 New freemen were 
admitted by a vote of the general court, composed of all 
the freemen ; 5 or, later, by the representative courts. No 

*At what point the word freeman was first applied to the partners 
does not appear from the records. It is used in 1633 and occurs fre- 
quently in the legislation of 1636, and probably was adopted from the 
Massachusetts use of the word (Plymouth Records, Court Records, 

2 Hazard, Historical Collections, I, 298-304. 

8 Records of the Colony of New Plymouth, Laws, 7, 10. 

4 Ibid., 10. The fine for neglecting to vote was re-enacted in 1660 
and changed from three to ten shillings (Records, Laws, 84, 127). 

5 Ibid., Court Records, I, 32, and passim. 



342 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

general qualifications appear to have been required of appli- 
cants for the freemanship except the taking of an oatl 
allegiance to the king and of fidelity to the government. 1 
It is apparent, however, that the freemen did not, as in earh 
Maryland, include all the free men. Notwithstanding 
generous extension of political and economic rights in J I 
the existence of a non-enfranchised class is plain by 1636 
The laws of that year established an inhabitant's oath, simi 
lar to that for freemen; 2 jury service was required of free 
holders who were not freemen as well as those who ha< 
been admitted, 3 and no person could be admitted as ar 
inhabitant, or be permitted to become a housekeeper, or t< 
build a cottage, without the consent of some of the ma| 
trates. 4 

As in early Connecticut, so in Plymouth, the suffrage 
was controlled largely by placing restrictions upon the ad 
mission of inhabitants rather than by expressing definite 
qualifications for the freemanship. Thus, in the abseno 

1 Records of the Colony of Nezv Plymouth, Laws, 8. In requiring th 
oath of allegiance to the king the government of Plymouth differe' 
from that of Massachusetts. The oath is as follows : 

" You shall be truly loyall to our Sov. Lord King Charles 
his heires & successors. You shall not speake or doe, devise or 
advise any thing or things act or acts directly or indirectly by 
land or water, that doth shall or may tend to the destruccon 
or overthrow of this prn't plantacons Colonie or Corporacon 
of New Plymouth, Neither shall you suffer the same to be 
spoken or done but shall hinder oppose & discover the same 
to the Gov 1 " & Assistants of the said Colony for the time being 
or some one of them. You shall faithfully submit unto such 
good & wholesome laws & ordnances as either are or shall be 
made for the ordering & governm* of the same, and shall 
endeavor to advance the growth & good of the several Colonies 
w th in the limits of this Corporacon by all due meanes & 
courses. All w ch you promise & swear by the name of the 
great God of heaven & earth simply truly & faithfully to 
p'forme as you hope for help fro' God who is the God of truth 
and punisher of falsehood." 

■ Ibid., 9, 12. 

t Ibid., 11. * Ibid.. 26, 108, 109. 



The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 343 

of any express restrictions upon the freemanship, the terms 
of admission of inhabitants into the colony became more 
important than they were in the Massachusetts Bay colony. 
The matter was not left with the several towns, but was 
controlled by the general government, and without the per- 
mission of some of the magistrates none could be admitted. 
By " lamentable experience" the general court had dis- 
covered that unworthy persons were sometimes admitted 
when such power was left to the local inhabitants. 1 In 1640 
the court ordered that no new inhabitants be admitted into 
Yarmouth " except they bring certificate from the places 
whence they come, vnder sufficient mens hands of the s'd 
places, of their religious and honest carriage, w ch certify- 
cate shall first be allowed by the gou'n r and assistants before 
such p'sons be admitted there." 2 An inhabitant's oath had 
been required as early as 1636, and in 1644 the court ordered 
that no person should be considered an inhabitant unless he 
took the oath of fidelity. 3 Between 1658 and 1662 resi- 
dents who refused to take the oath of fidelity might be fined 
annually ; 4 and in the former year, when many had " crept 
into some townshipes" contrary to the " ancient and whol- 
some" law of 1636-7, all not formally admitted were re- 
quired to gain the approbation of the governor and at least 
two of the assistants; or, failing in that, to depart the 
colony. 5 In 1678 additional steps were taken for enforcing 
the law of 1636-7 in order to prevent " prophanes In- 
creasing in the Collonie which is soe provoakeing to God 
and threatening to bringe Judgments vpon vs." 6 Fines were 
to be imposed upon residents who remained without permis- 
sion, and upon persons entertaining such residents. The 
act concludes with the injunction to the magistrates, — show- 
ing the retention of a religious qualification at this late 

Plymouth Records, Court Records, I, 120. 

*Ibid., 142. See Court Records, III, 165, for permission to settle in 
a town. 

3 Plymouth Records, Laws, 43. 

4 Ibid., 109, 118, 129. For infliction of fine, see Court Orders, III, 
139, 176, 181, 191. 

5 Ibid., Laws, 118. 
*Ibid., 248. 



344 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

date, — that they " wilbe carefull, that whom they ao 
off, are p'sons orthadox in theire Judgments." Thu 
become a legal inhabitant a man must take the oath of fi 
ity, and must be accepted by the magistrates ; and to obtain 
the approval of the latter a certificate of religious character 
might be required or some proof of orthodoxy in belief. 
While there was no religious qualification for the freeman- 
ship, the character of a man's religious belief might pro- 
cure his admission or exclusion from the colony. 

This question of inhabitancy in Plymouth is signii 
not only because there were few restrictions upon the i 
manship itself, but also on account of the political privii* 
which were granted to inhabitants who were not freemen. 
As early as 1636 non-freemen appear to be associated with 
the freemen in town affairs, 1 but their most valuable privi- 
lege came in the association with the freemen in the election 
of deputies to the representative courts established in 1638. 
The town deputies were to be chosen by the freemen and 
" such as are not ffreemen but haue taken the Oath of fidel- 
itie and are masters of famylies and Inhabitants of the said 
Townes as they are to beare their [part] in the charges of 
their Committees so to haue a vote in the choyce of them." : 
But the delegates chosen must be freemen, and the magis- 
trates and deputies were empowered to dismiss any deputy 
who was " insufficient or troublesome." Under this pro- 
vision non-freemen participated in the election of repre- 
sentatives throughout the colonial period, although only 
freemen took part in the election of magistrates. 3 

The scrutiny required by law before the admission of in- 
habitants was not always exercised, 4 and in 1658 an order 
of court recognized the fact that " the Number of freemen 
in many places is but smale and the Inhabitants of the 
townshipes many more whoe haue equall voates with the 
freemen in the choise of Deputies;" by the weakness or 
prejudice of these inhabitants, the court stated, " it hath or 

1 Plymouth Records, Laws, 18. 

2 Ibid., 31. 

3 The similar provision in Connecticut colony from 1639 to 1^62 n 
have been introduced from Plymouth. 

4 Compare Laws, 1 18. 



The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 345 

may come to passe that very vnfitt and vnworthy p'sons 
may be chosen." To prevent such evils the magistrates and 
deputies were again empowered to exclude objectionable 
members. 1 The more natural policy of limiting the suffrage 
was adopted in 1669, when it was provided that none should 
vote in town meetings but freemen, or " freeholders of 
twenty pounds ratable estate and of good conversation 
haueing taken the oath of fidelitie." 2 A few years later, in 
1678, it was found " that the voateing of p r sons that haue 
not taken the oath of fidelity, doth much obstruct the carry- 
ing on of religion in the publicke weak." Accordingly, the 
exclusion from town meetings of those who had not taken 
the oath was reaffirmed, and the clerks of the towns were 
directed to keep the names of the men of their towns who 
had taken the oath. 3 

We must now notice what requirements were imposed 
upon applicants for the freemanship, after having become 
inhabitants of the colony. Three formalities cut off the non- 
free from the franchise, — the proposal of the applicant's 
name to the general court, his acceptance after a term of 
probation, and the taking of the oath of freeman by him 
after the court had voted to admit him. 4 For a number of 
years there appears to have been no formal method of pro- 
posing the names of applicants ; and the term of probation 
was not a fixed one, but usually lasted until the next meet- 
ing of the court, which might not be a longer time than 
three or four months. A change in the method of admission 
did not come until June, 1656, when it was ordered that 
future candidates for the freemanship should be " such as 
shalbee alsoe approued of by the freemen in such townes 
wher they Hue," and propounded to the court by the deputies 
of their respective towns. 5 Thus the approbation of the 

1 Compare Laws, 92. 2 Ibid., 223. 3 Ibid., 248. 

4 See Records, passim, for instances of each of these features. 

5 Ibid., Court Orders, III, 101 ; also Laws, 65, 68. Compare this cus- 
tom with the relation of town freemanship to colony freemanship in 
Rhode Island, where the colony resigned almost entirely to the towns 
the prerogative of admission to the franchise. Plymouth never went so 
far in her local privileges. The Plymouth law was re-enacted in almost 
the same words in June, 1674 (Records, Laws, 236). 



346 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Cola 

select class of freemen of a man's own town must first be 
obtained before his name could be proposed for admission 
to the colony court. Even this restriction did not seem 
sufficient, and two years later the applicant was require 
" stand one whole yeare propounded to the Court," and 
then to be admitted if the court " shall not see cause to the 
Contrary." 1 

In the meantime, following the leadership of her str 
neighbors, Plymouth began a policy of religious rest 
tions which, while never so exclusive as those of Massachu- 
setts and New Haven, yet departed from the more tolerant 
practice of the early settlers. In June, 1650, the feat 
of the Massachusetts conformity act of 1635-6 were adopted 
by Plymouth. The new order provided 

" That forasmuch as there are Risen vp amongst vs many scandalvs 
practises which are likly to proue destructiue to our churches and 
Common peace; That whosoeuer shall heerafter set vp any churches 
or publicke meetings diverse from those allreddy set vp and approued 
without the concent and approbacon of the Gouerment or shall con- 
tinew any otherwise set vp without concent as aforsaid shalbe 
pended from haueing any voyce in towne meetings and p'sented to the 
next general court to Receue such punishment as the court shall think 
meet to Inflict." 2 

A few years later, in 1659, during the first invasion 
the Quakers into New England, Quakers and sympathi: 
with them were disfranchised in Plymouth. " Noe Quaker 
Rantor or any such corupt p'son" could be admitted to the 
franchise ; 3 and freemen who were found to be Quakers or 
"manifest Incurragers" of them were to be disfranchi- 
Linked with the Quakers in exclusion from the freemanship 
were " opposers of the good and whosome lawes of this 
Collonie or manifest opposers of the true worship of God 
or such as refuse to doe the Countrey seruice being called 
thervnto ;" and joined with them in incurring the pains of 
disfranchisement after admission were " such as shall con- 
temptuously speake of the Court or of the lawes thereof 

1 Records, Laws, 79. Compare with similar feature in Connecticut. 

2 Ibid., 57. 

3 Records, Court Records, III, 167; Lazvs, 100. 



The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 347 

and such as are Judged by the Court grosly scandalouse as 
lyers drunkards Swearers &c." 1 The association of the 
Quakers in the minds of the legislators with such classes 
shows that the opposition to them was grounded not so 
much upon a religious fear as upon the political necessity 
of maintaining the purity of the body politic. Not until 
July, 1 68 1, were the Quakers restored to a more favorable 
position. Then certain Quakers dwelling in Sandwich were 
given liberty to vote in the disposal of lands and the choice 
of rators or assessors. 2 

The royal commissioners to New England inquired into 
the condition of Plymouth as well as the other colonies, and 
were favorably impressed by the attitude of the authorities. 
To the four propositions of the commissioners 3 the general 
court responded in May, 1665. The reply to the first was 
that they had been accustomed to require all householders 
to take the oath of loyalty to the king. To the second, the 
court said it had been the constant practice 

"to admitt men of competent estates and ciuell conversation, though 
of different judgments, yet being otherwise orthodox, to bee freemen, 
and to haue libertie to chose and bee chosen officers both ciuell and 
milletary." 4 

The reply to the third proposal was worded more guard- 
edly; the court would "most hartily rejoyce that all our 
naighbours, soe quallifyed as in the proposition, would 
adjoyne themselves to our societie;" but if differing beliefs 
made this impossible, they would not deny the liberty of 
establishing other societies, where an able preaching min- 
ister was supported and regular Sabbath worship estab- 
lished ; but they inferred that where by reason of the paucity 
and poverty ("pausette and pouertie") of the population 

'Cases of disfranchisement both before and after 1659 are common 
in the Plymouth records. The causes of disfranchisement were drunk- 
enness, lewdness, accepting Quakerism or sympathizing with Quakers, 
and opposing the government (Court Records, I, 132; III, 167, 176, 
189). 

2 Court Records, VI, 71. 

3 Ibid., IV, 85,86. 
'Ibid. 



348 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

two congregations could not be maintained, it was not in- 
tended to root out the present organization. There are, the 
court added, " other places to accommodate men of diftV 
pswasions in societies by themselves." To the fourth pro- 
posal the court expressed itself not conscious of any laws 
derogatory to the king's dignity, but promised to repeal or 
alter them if any should be found. 

These answers and the general attitude of the court 
pleased the commissioners, and they wrote in their nar- 
rative, — 

" They are here constrained to perswade men, sometimes to compell 
them, to be free men, soe far are they from hindering any." ' 

Such a comment from those who were looking for irregu- 
larities means more than it would from the colonists them- 
selves. Plymouth possessed fewer natural advantages and 
less wealth than did the neighboring colonies, and conse- 
quently there were not the same inducements for settlers to 
enter the colony. Thus she retained a greater economic 
and religious homogeneity than Massachusetts or Connec- 
ticut, and it is noteworthy that the records of Plymouth do 
not show the restless activity of a disfranchised class which 
is seen in Massachusetts and New Haven. Perhaps the 
commissioners were right in their statement of the difficulty 
of obtaining freemen. 

But the test of such a statement would be found in the 
actual number of freemen and their proportion to the whole 
population. In 1634 it is probable that considerably more 
than a majority of the adult male taxpayers were freemen. 2 
By 1638 the whole number of freemen was one hundred 
and twenty-three ; 3 and forty-four more were added within 
the next five years. 4 In 1643, therefore, not allowing for 
deaths, there were one hundred and sixty-seven freemen, at 

1 Hutchinson, Papers (Prince Society), II, 145. 

2 There were sixty-eight freemen in 1634 and only eighty-six male 
taxables in the preceding year, but it is probable that the number of 
males was greater than the number of taxables (Palfrey, I, 344)- 

8 Court Records, I, 52. 

* Ibid., 126-161 passim; II, 8-52 passi)n. 



The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 349 

a time when the males between the ages of sixteen and 
sixty numbered six hundred and forty. 1 It accordingly 
seems probable that the freemen at this time made up about 
one-fourth of the adult male population. Yet sixteen years 
later, upon a matter submitted to the freemen, only one 
hundred and seventy-four freemen voted. 2 In 1670 the 
number of freemen had increased to three hundred and fifty- 
nine 3 in a population estimated at five thousand. 4 This 
would give one freeman to fourteen persons of the popula- 
tion, and make the freeman class one-third or one-fourth 
of the adult male population. Apparently, therefore, the 
enfranchised class in Plymouth was slightly larger than in 
Massachusetts, and somewhat smaller than in Connecticut 5 
at this time. 6 

III. The Northern Territories: New Hampshire and Maine. 

Little need be said in this connection of the suffrage 
in New Hampshire. The facts of interest during the inde- 
pendent existence of the colony will be told in their proper 
place, while under the rule of Massachusetts, her policies 
dominated the New Hampshire towns. Some of the New 

1 Records, VIII, 187. 

2 Court Records, III, 174. 

3 Ibid., V, 274. 

4 Palfrey, III, 35. 

8 The writer cannot agree with Goodwin {Pilgrim Republic, 415) 
that the proportion of freemen in Massachusetts was " a half greater" 
than in Plymouth. 

6 Plymouth, like her neighbors, developed a system of so-called proxy 
voting, but the records are meagre in their descriptions of it, and 
apparently it never possessed the features of a true proxy which are 
to be found in early Rhode Island and Maryland. The " proxy" was 
simply the written ballot of the freeman who did not desire to attend 
personally the annual court of elections. The ballot was handed by 
the freeman to the town deputy after the latter's election in the town 
meeting, and by the deputy the actual ballot was taken, together with 
a list of the names of those so voting, to the general court of elec- 
tions. There the freemen present first gave their votes and then, in an 
orderly fashion, the deputies presented the ballots of those who had 
decided not to attend {Plymouth Records, Laws, 79~8o, Court Orders, 
II, 118). 



35° The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

Hampshire settlements had, indeed, been founded by 
senters from Massachusetts, and at the time of incorpora- 
tion with Massachusetts, those who had been formally ad- 
mitted as inhabitants or " freemen" of the New Hampshire 
towns were granted the Massachusetts franchise. 1 But this 
practice, apparently, did not continue after the union, and 
the same rules were applied to applicants for the freemen- 
ship from these towns as were imposed upon those in V. 
sachusetts proper. 

In Maine, on the other hand, there was a longer indepen- 
dent existence before the union with Massachusetts, and a 
greater variation from the prevailing New England idea of 
freemanship. From the time of the unfortunate Popham 
colony on the Kennebec in 1607 for almost thirty years 
there was no regularly organized government in Maine, and 
the scattered settlements under different grants were prac- 
tically self-governing communities. The first government 
worthy of the name was that established in 1636 by V 
Ham Gorges, a nephew of the proprietor, at Saco. 2 This 
was followed four years later by a more formal organization 
under the new charter granted by the king in 163'. 
Gorges. The charter gave to the proprietor wide palatine 
powers similar to those granted to Lord Baltimore, rt\<' 
in the case of the latter, the inhabitants of the colony were 
to be joined with the proprietor in the making of 1; 
The legislative power was to be exercised by the proprietor 
" with the assent of the greater parte of the Freeholders of 
the said Province and Premisses for the tyme being (when 
there shal bee any) whoe are to bee called thereunto from 
tyme to tyme." 3 In March, 1639-40, Gorges executed 
papers for the establishment of government under the char- 
ter by erecting a council of seven named persons, and eight 
representatives of the freeholders elected from four coun- 
ties. 4 The small village of Agamenticus (York) was first 
erected into a borough, and then in 1642 was made a city 

1 Mass. Col. Rec, II, 29. 

4 Williamson, I, 281. The first meeting under Gorges's fram- 

3 Poore, Charters and Constitutions, I, 776. 

4 Williamson, I, 281. The first meeting under George's frame of 
government appears to have been a pure democratic meeting (ibid.). 



The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 351 

with a mayor, recorder, twelve aldermen and twenty-four 
common councilmen, all annually elected by the citizens and 
freeholders. 1 

After the death of Gorges in 1647, some confusion arose 
in the colony, and in July, 1649, a popular convention, meet- 
ing at Gorgeana (York), established a popular government 
based upon a general compact : 

"We, with our free and voluntary consent, do bind ourselves in a 
body politic and combination, to see these parts of the Country and 
Province regulated, according to such laws as have formerly been 
exercised, and such others as shall be thought meet, but not repugnant 
to the fundamental laws of our native Country." 2 

A governor and five or six councillors were to be elected 
annually and the choice determined " by most voices." Ap- 
parently, therefore, popular government existed among the 
settlers of the Gorges tract for a number of years before 
the union with Massachusetts. During this period, when 
any qualifications for the suffrage were expressed, and such 
was not often the case, the franchise was limited to free- 
holders, except in the case of the city of Gorgeana, where 
" citizens" could vote. 

In addition to the Gorges colony there were a number of 
other settlements in the Maine territory, but their scattered 
inhabitants owed relationship to various proprietors, or to 
the colony of Plymouth, and political association was of 
the most rudimentary kind. Only among the settlers of the 
Lygonia patent do popular meetings appear to have played 
a definite part in the government. 3 At best the forms of 
government only were a little further developed in the 
Gorges lands and the colony of Lygonia than in the weak 

'Palfrey, I, 527; Williamson, I, 287. Palfrey estimates that two- 
thirds of the adult males must have been favored with places of 
authority under this charter; and it was the foolishness of the pro- 
prietor in bestowing such an organization upon a frontier village, 
together with their heterodoxy in religion, which led to the exclusion 
of the Gorges settlements from the confederacy of New England colo- 
nists in 1643 (Winthrop, II, 100). 

2 Williamson, I, 326. 

'Ibid., 327, note. 



352 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

settlements to the eastward of them ; the real administration 
of government throughout all the country was crude and 
uncertain. It is probable that many welcomed the claims of 
Massachusetts as a means to a better regulation of s 

In 1 65 1 the Massachusetts general court took steps 
assert the authority over the Maine settlements which 
claimed was its right under the charter of 1628-29; and 
in the following year the nearest Maine settlements gave in 
their submission. The agreement with the inhabitants 
Kittery Point included the following article relating to 
franchise : 

"7. That all the present inhabitants of Kittery shall be freemen of 
the countrye, and, having taken the oath of freemen, shall have lit- 
ertye to give theire votes for the election of the Gouerno r , Assistants, 
and other generall officers of the countrye." 2 

Similar terms were granted to Gorgeana (York), Wells, 
Saco, Cape Porpus, and, in 1658, to Lygonia. 3 It will be 
seen that the Massachusetts authorities by these art! 
admitted the inhabitants to the freemanship without ra- 
ring to the religious question, and, as many of the Maine 
settlers were not Puritans, it was the wisest plan to ad 
It is hardly likely that the inhabitants of the northeastern 
settlements would so readily have submitted had their sub- 
jection included a religious as well as a political dependence 
upon Massachusetts. Yet there was no guarantee in the 
articles that the lenient policy would be continued ; only 
" present" inhabitants were given these terms. For the 
future the same religious restrictions governed the admis- 
of freemen from the North as from the rest of the col" 
The early liberalism may have led the inhabitants to think 
they would receive similar treatment in the future; but 
in 1670, when complaining of the lack of freemen, the in- 
habitants of York County were advised by the general a 
to obtain an orthodox minister as the best way to increase 

1 Williamson, I, 333. 

2 Mass. Col. Rec, IV, Pt. I, 122 ff. 

3 Ibid., 128, 157 ff., 357 ff. Williamson estimates that 150 per- 
took the freeman's oath in the first instance, and that they repre^t 
a population of about 2100 (I, 356, note). 



The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 353 

the number of freemen among them. 1 No further conces- 
sion was made to the New Hampshire and Maine settlers. 
Until 1679, in New Hampshire, and during the entire 
colonial period in Maine, the basis of representation and 
the suffrage in the northern settlements was the legislation 
of the colony of Massachusetts. 

IV. Under the Charter of 169 1. 

For three years after the revolution of 1689 m Boston 
the government of Massachusetts was carried on without 
express legal sanction upon the principles of the old char- 
ter. We have already noted how the revolution resulted in 
an extension of the suffrage during this inter-charter period. 
It now remains for us to note the granting of the new char- 
ter and consider the suffrage provisions under its terms. 
After the accession of William and Mary, Mather and other 
agents worked to the utmost to obtain the restoration of the 
Did charter. 2 But in this they failed, and the king would 
:onsent to the granting of a charter only where a closer con- 
nection should be maintained with England. 3 

The charter of October 7, 1691, 4 established a new 
:orporation, stripped of the commercial characteristics of the 
Did company, and gave it the name of the " Province of the 
Massachusetts Bay in New England." The new govern- 
ment included the Bay colony, Plymouth, Maine, and the 
scattered settlements from the Kennebec to Nova Scotia. 
[ts principal officers — governor, deputy-governor, and a 
secretary — were to be appointed by the king; a council of 
:wenty-eight members was to be elected annually by the 
assembly; and the representative assembly was to be com- 
Dosed of two deputies elected " by the Major parte of the 
Freeholders and other inhabitants of the respective Townes 
)r Places who shall be present at such Eleccons." 

The religious qualifications for the suffrage were abol- 
shed by the new charter, and at last the colony was given 

'Mass. Col. Rec, IV, Pt. II, 452. 

2 Palfrey, IV, 61-70. 

3 Ibid., 71-75. 

4 Poore, Charters and Constitutions, I, 942-954. 

23 



354 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

a uniform property qualification. According to the terms 
of the copy of the charter which Governor Phipps brought 
to Boston on May 14, 1692, it was provided that 

" noe Freeholder or other Person shall have a Vote in the Eleccon of 
Members to serve in any Greate and Generall Court or Assembly to be 
held as aforesaid who at the time of such Eleccon shall not have an 
estate of Freehold in Land within Our said Province or Territor 
the value of Forty Shillings per Annu. at the least or other estate to 
the value of Forty pounds Sterl'." ■ 

But this copy did not agree with that which passed the 
great seal on October 7, 1691, which required the voter to 
possess an income of forty shillings from freehold land or 
other estate to the value of fifty pounds. 2 The practice of 
the colonial government was based upon their copy of the 
charter, while the English government, throughout the colo- 
nial period, attempted to enforce the fifty pounds provision 
of the charter as enrolled in London. 3 Aside, howe 
from this controversy, the charter basis of the suffrage is 
interesting because it gave the rational dual qualifications, — 
those of real estate and of personal property. The anti- 
quated forty-shilling freehold requisite, now two hundred 
and fifty years old, was joined with the alternative of the 
possession of forty or fifty pounds value of other property. 
This was as great a compromise as seventeenth century 
statesmen could admit to their favorite English doctrine of 
the representation of real estate. Yet it was more favorable 
than the requirements which the freemen of Rhode Island 
placed upon applicants for the freemanship, or those im- 
posed upon New Hampshire by the royal commissions and 
instructions to her governors; and it was identical with 
the qualifications in force in Connecticut after 1702. 

Since the royal charter of 1691 continued as the frame 
of government of the colony until the Revolution, its express 

1 Poore, I, 949. 

1 Ellis Ames in Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc, 1868, 370-375. has pointed out 
the probable cause of the discrepancy, which he ascribes to a change 
in the English copy just before passing the great seal, while the copy 
made ready for Phipps was not changed in a corresponding manner. 

8 J. F. Jameson, New England Magazine, Jan., 1800, 486. 



The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 355 

provisions for the suffrage furnish the sole legal basis of 
the franchise during the eighteenth century. There are no 
further changes in the formal qualifications of voters to be 
noted, except a naturalization act of February, 1730-31, 
which only indirectly affected the suffrage, through its ex- 
clusion of foreign Catholics from the rights of citizenship, 1 
We may, therefore, glance at some facts bearing upon the 
size of the voting class in Massachusetts during the eigh- 
teenth century. In the election of May, 1692, a few days 
before Governor Phipps arrived with the new charter, only 
about one thousand freemen took part in the election of 
magistrates; 2 which, accepting Palfrey's estimate of the 
population at the time, 3 would show only one voter to sixty 
persons in the population. This extremely small proportion, 
after the recent enlargement of the freemanship, can be ex- 
plained only on the ground of a lack of popular interest in 
the election, perhaps resulting from the belief that the ex- 
isting government was only temporary and must soon give 
place to the organization under the new charter. 4 Some 
idea of the proportion of voters after the charter was estab- 
lished can be gained from the records of the town of Boston. 
In 1703 only two hundred and six persons 5 voted for the 
representatives of Boston out of a population of about seven 
thousand ; 6 or one person in thirty-five. During the ten 
years, 1 745-1 754, which may be taken as fairly normal elec- 
tion years, the average population of Boston has been esti- 
nated at 15,731 persons. 7 The records of the town show 

1 Session Laws, 447. By this act " all Protestants of foreign Nations" 
A'ho had resided within the province for one year could be granted all 
he privileges of natural-born subjects of the king of England. 

'Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., 3d Series, X, 120. The total number of 
rates cast for twenty-one candidates was 16,197. If each freeman 
rated for sixteen, — and that many are marked as elected, — the number 
)f voters would be about one thousand. 

'New England, IV, 135. 

* Governor Bradstreet, on May 4, 1692, had taken the oath of office 
' for this year, or until there be a settlement of government from the 
:rown of England" (Palfrey, IV, 89). 

5 Samuel Sewall, Diary, Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., 5th Series, VI, 79- 

'Report Boston Record Commissioners, I, 4. 

7 Ibid. 



356 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

exactly the number of voters in the annual elections for the 
representatives to the general court during this period. 1 The 
greatest number of voters at any election was j2$ in 1748;* 
the least was 327 in 1752 ; and the average for the ten years 
was 502, or a little more than three per cent, of the popula- 
tion. In the years following down to the Revolution there 
was practically no change in the population of Boston, 8 and 
little variation in the size of the voting class. The average 
number of voters in the decade, 1755-1764, was 61 1, 4 or 
very nearly four per cent, of the population ; while in the 
decade, 1 765-1 774, immediately preceding the Revolution, 
the average number of voters had shrunk to 555,° or about 
three and one-half per cent, of the population. The gre;: 
number of voters at any Boston election appears to have 
been in 1763, when 1089 persons balloted, 6 or about 
and one-half per cent, of the population. It is interesting 
notice that the lack of contests led to a diminution in the 
number of electors ; and in the years immediately preceding 
the Revolution, when the popular representatives rece 
almost unanimous elections, the size of the voting class was 
smaller than in earlier years w r hen local questions had 
aroused the interest of the people. 7 

It has been estimated that the potential voters, that is, all 
those who possessed the right of suffrage, made up about 

1 Report Record Com., XIV, 72-255 passim. 

'Ibid., 148. 

'Ibid., I, 4. 

* Ibid., XIV, 255-305 passim; XVI, 10-113 passim. 

5 Ibid., 141-278 passim; XVIII, 21-166 passim. 

6 Ibid., XVI, 88. This election appears to have been overlooked by 
Ernst, who gives the figure 723 as probably the greatest number 
voters {Const. Hist, of Boston, 47), a number surpassed on several 
occasions; and by Hart, who names 916 as the number of voters in 
" the most crowded town meeting ever held in Boston before the 
Revolution" {Political Science Quarterly, VII, 322). 

7 In 1771 the number of voters was 410, every one of whom \ 
for Thomas Cushing and John Hancock, 403 for Samuel Adams 
399 for James Otis (each elector voting for four persons). In 177, 
and 1774 almost the same unanimity existed. On the other hand, th< 
election of 1772, contested somewhat, called out 723 voters {Report 
Record Com., XVIII, 53. 78, 129, 166). 



The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 357 

sixteen per cent, of the population of Massachusetts at the 
close of the colonial period and the beginning of the national 
epoch. 1 And accepting this figure, it appears that only one 
out of four or five of the qualified voters actually exercised 
his right. This indifference was only slightly lessened in the 
votes upon constitutional questions in 1 778-1 780, 2 and in 
the ten years, 1 780-1 789 the actual voters numbered about 
three per cent, of the population. 3 It was not until after the 
adoption of the national constitution, and the introduction 
of party ideas and machinery that the voting class was con- 
siderably enlarged. 4 Just why the number of actual electors 
was so much smaller proportionately in Massachusetts than 
in New York or Virginia is not at once apparent. It is 
probable, however, that the solidarity of sentiment in New 
England did not develop that vigilance upon the part of the 
elector which was a natural outcome of the jarring factions 
of New York City; and the town meeting itself probably 
became so effective a political machine that attendance was 
not esteemed important or interesting as it was upon the Vir- 
ginia election day. Whatever the cause, the citizen of Mas- 
sachusetts does not appear to take as great an interest — 
measuring interest by the exercise of the suffrage fran- 
chise — in his colonial elections as is shown in some of the 
colonies outside of New England. 

V. Local Suffrage. 

A. Town Elections. 

A general feature, if not indeed a universal one, in the 
early town life, both in Plymouth and the Bay Colony, was 
the common ownership of the town lands. 5 There is some 

a J. F. Jameson, New England Magazine, Jan., 1890, 486; G. D. 
Luetscher, Early Political Machinery in the United States, 12. 

'Jameson, op. cit., 487, 488. 

'Ibid. 

4 For a careful and interesting study of the causes leading to the 
growing participation in politics of the potential voters, see Luetscher, 
Early Political Machinery. 

5 Scarcely a topic of Massachusetts history has called forth so much 
discussion as the question of the origin and early organization of the 



358 The Stiff rage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

doubt about the relationship of the New England town to 
the English parish ; it can be proved, perhaps, that the church 
congregation was not the common unit of colonizing force; 
and the question of priority between towns and the general 
government may not at present be determinable; but il 
clear that in almost all the New England towns there was an 
economic partnership, which, by actual occupation, or pur- 
chase from the Indians, or, most commonly, by grant from 
the central colonial government, received a permanent basis 
in the common ownership of a tract of land. The land 
obtained in one of these ways was subsequently apportioned 
in part or wholly to the original partners and to those who 
had later been joined with them. The individuals forming 
such a quasi corporation were the " commoners,'' and, origi- 
nally, were the sole " inhabitants." To these original in- 
habitants others were added by the vote of the town, who 
might be admitted upon equal terms or only rent land and 
houses, or being freeholders yet not obtain rights of com- 
monage. Thus an early equality of rights gave place to an 
economic and political diversity; and the term inhabitant 
came to include not only the original commoners and their 
successors, but also freeholders who had no rights of com- 
monage, and householders who were only renters. 

This term, " inhabitants," has given the Massachusetts 
historians a great deal of trouble. Since the colonial records 
did not frame a definition of it, recourse has been had to the 
English meanings of the word; but the writers have been 
unable even to agree upon this, and Coke has been quoted 
against Coke. 1 In Massachusetts the word possessed no 

Massachusetts towns. The controversy has been complicated by the 
meagreness of the records, the failure of contemporary writers t< 
define their terms, and the desire of recent writers to support personal 
historical theories. The present writer does not profess to have the 
fulness of information necessary to decide the questions in dispute, 
nor is this work the proper place for such a discussion. All that can 
be done here is to summarize the results of the local investigators 
and test the facts of local suffrage in Massachusetts in the light oi 
the experience of other colonies. 

1 Channing, /. H. U. Studies, II, 444 ; C. F. Adams, Mass. Hist. Soc 
Proc, 2d Series, VII, 178; Goodell, ibid., 213. The intricacies of the 



The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 359 

fixed meaning. It cannot be held with Channing that an 
inhabitant was universally a householder or one who 
manured land in the town ; x nor is it possible here to make 
the word synonymous with freeholder alone ; 2 upon occa- 
sions the word received both a wider and a narrower inter- 
pretation than the English uses. The general court in 1634 
imposed an oath upon inhabitants, 3 and by an order of April 
1, required every " man of or above the age of twenty yeares, 
who hath bene or shall hereafter be resident within this juris- 
diccon by the space of sixe monethes, as an householder or 
sojorner, and not infranchised," to swear that he was an 
inhabitant of the colony, that he would acknowledge the 
authority of the established government, and would respect 
its laws. According to this rule, therefore, the inhabitants 
included sojourners as well as householders. 4 On the other 
hand, the town of Hampton, New Hampshire, in 1662, while 
a part of the Massachusetts Bay colony, voted in town meet- 
ing that " no man shall be judged an inhabitant in this town, 
nor have power or liberty to act in town affairs, or have 
privilege of commonage, either sweepage or feedage, but he 
that hath one share of commonage, at least, according to the 
first division, and land to build upon." 5 Other records show 
various qualifications imposed upon town voters. Almost in- 
variably the voter must previously have been accepted or 
" settled" in the town by vote of the town meeting or select- 
subject of inhabitancy cannot be fully appreciated until one has perused 
the account given by Mildmay in The Method and Rule of Proceeding 
upon all Elections . . . within the City of London [1743L and the 
extensive notes by H. K. S. Causton in his edition of Mildmay (1841), 
pp. xxxvi, 53 ff. note, 92 ff. note. See also the ambiguous language of 
the act of Parliament, 26, Geo. Ill, ch. 100. 

1 Op. cit. 

2 Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc, 2d Series, VII, 203. Chamberlain believes 
that the inhabitants " included all male adults who, either by general 
laws or town regulations, were permitted permanently to reside within 
the town limits, irrespective of their ownership of lands" (ibid., VII, 
241). 

*Mass. Col. Rec, I, 115. 

*It should be stated, however, that the later custom called this the 
"resident's" oath. 
5 New Hampshire Provincial Papers, I, 153- 



360 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

men. 1 In Haverhill he must also obtain the town's consent 
to his voting in town meeting, 2 unless he possessed the quali- 
fications imposed by the general colonial ordinance ; 3 while 
in Watertown he could be accounted a " townsman" or 
voting inhabitant if he had received a share in the land divi- 
dends or was admitted with the consent of the town. 4 On 
the other hand a person who had " sojourned in other mens 
houses" for two years in Charlestown was spoken of as an 
" inhabitant," and was expressly permitted by the general 
court to purchase land in the town. 5 

It can readily be understood that such variations in local 
custom, linked with the different names applied to the voters 
in town meetings, — as inhabitants, freeholders, freemen or 
townsmen, — would lead to difficulties in making generaliza- 
tions respecting the suffrage in towns. We shall be near the 
truth if we think of the suffrage in these Massachusetts towns 
as exercised by the householders who were also heads of 
families. 6 There may have been some voters, who, by local 
consent or by the general laws, did not fall within the class 
of householders, but their numbers must have been few and 
their influence slight. 7 The ancient English meaning of the 

1 Dorchester Records, in Boston Rec. Com. Rept., IV, 8; Bond, 
History of Watertown, II, 998; Coffin, Newbury, 23; Chase, Ha 
hill, 89. A most interesting statement of the principles of the early 
land grants is to be found in the order of Watertown (Bond, II, 996), 
that " Those ffreemen of the Congregation shall build and dwell upon 
their Lotts at y e Towne Plott, and not to alienate them by selling or 
Exchanging them to any forrainer, but to fTreemen of the congrega- 
tion, it being our real intent to sitt down here close togither, and 
therefore, these Lotts were granted to those fTreemen y t inhabited 
most remote from y e meeting-house, and dwell most scattered." 

8 Chase, Haverhill, 89. 

8 See post. 

4 Bond, Watertown, II, 998. 

8 Corey, History of Maiden, 81 (1640). 

8 This opinion is based not upon any express stipulation found in the 
town records or the laws, but upon the general sense and spirit of the 
town regulations. 

7 C. F. Adams has pointed out that under Article XII. of the Body 
of Liberties of 1641 all the men (not servants) of the colony had the 
right to attend any public meetings or courts, and there in an orderly 



The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 361 

word inhabitant, as equivalent to householder, 1 was the 
common, although perhaps not universal, acceptation of the 
word in Massachusetts. 

But while the towns had considerable volition in fixing the 
local suffrage, the central government did not hesitate to 
legislate upon the subject. Mention has already been made 
of the provisions of the Plymouth laws upon the subject, and 
it remains now only to summarize the legislation of the Bay 
Colony. About four years after the restriction of the free- 
manship to church-members, a policy of almost equal severity 
was adopted with reference to the local suffrage. In Sep- 
tember, 1635, the general court ordered 

" that none but ffreemen shall have any vote in any towne, in any 
accon of aucthoritie, or necessity, or that which belongs to them by 
vertue of their ffreedome, as receaveing inhabitants, & layeing out of 
lotts, etc." 2 

By this law and future legislation the freemen were given 
entire control of town affairs. They had the power to dis- 
pose of town lands; to make ordinances and enforce them 
by fines ; and to elect their town officers. 3 Later they ob- 
tained the power of fixing the price of labor in the towns, 4 
and of taxing all inhabitants. 5 For twelve years the free- 
men retained these exclusive privileges, but in 1647 some 
political rights were restored to the town inhabitants. The 
general court " taking into consid r ation ye usefull pts & 

way to make propositions; and that the viva voce voting in the town 
meeting would give considerable opportunity for such persons to take 
part in the town affairs {Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc, 2d Series, VII, 206). 
On the other hand, it should be remembered that voting by "papers" 
was early introduced into some of the town elections. It is found in 
1659 in Dorchester (Boston Rec. Com. Rept., IV, 99) ; before 1637 in 
Newbury (Coffin, Newbury, 19) ; by 1682 in Haverhill (Chase, Haver- 
Wfj 137) ; and in the Plymouth Colony towns in 1643-4 (Records, 
Laws, 42). 
*H. Cox, Antient Parliamentary Elections (London, 1868), 178, 179. 

2 Mass. Col. Rec, I, 161. 

3 Ibid., 172 
*Ibid., 183. 
"Ibid., 231. 



362 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

abilities of div r s inhabitants amongst us, w ch are not free- 
men, \v ch , if imp'ved to publike use, ye affaires of this Comon 
wealth may be y e easier carried [to] an end," impowered the 
freemen of the respective towns to choose any non-free in- 
habitants, having taken the oath of fidelity and being over 
twenty- four years of age, to be jurors and voters in the 
town meetings, provided they had not been detected or con- 
victed of evil carriage against the government or churches. 1 

In 1658 the qualifications of such non-free voters wi 
stated more definitely and at the same time made more rigid. 
Thereafter town voters were 

" all Englishmen, that are settled Inhabitants and householders in 
town, of the age of twenty-four years, and of honest & good Conver- 
sations, being Rated at twenty pounds estate in a single Country Rate, 
and that have taken the Oath of Fidelity to this Government, and no 
other (except freemen) may be Chosen Select men, Jurors, or Con- 
stables, and have their vote, in the Choice of Select men, ... as also 
where no Select men are, to have their vote in ordering seta 
hearding of cattle, laying out highwayes, and distributing La:. 

The lines were drawn still more closely in 1670, when the 
property qualification of non-freeman voters was raise* I 
eighty pounds taxable estate, but those at the time possess 
the right to vote were not to be deprived of it. 3 Finally, in 
March, 1680-81 it was provided that any of the inhabit:, 
of a town, although not possessing the right to vote, could be 
chosen by the qualified electors to fill any of the town offk 
and after election and officiation in the position, such in- 
habitants for ever afterwards should have free liberty 
vote or to be chosen into any town office. 4 

After the receipt of the charter of 1691 it became necess : 

1 Mass. Col. Rec, II, 197. Any one convicted as above could vote 
again if the court sentencing him saw fit to restore him to his former 
liberty. The majority of the selectmen must be freemen. 

2 Ibid., IV, Pt. I, 336; Code of 1660, 76. The proviso was still 
retained that a majority of the selectmen must be freemen. 

3 Code of 1672, 147, 148. 

* Mass. Col. Rec, V, 306. This has been wrongly interprete<: 
doing away altogether with the property qualification for non-free 
town voters (Ernst, Const. Hist, of Boston, 22). 



The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 363 

to set a new qualification for the local suffrage. In the fall 
of 1692 a law was passed which gave the local franchise to 
" freeholders and other Inhabitants of each Town Ratable 
at Twenty Pounds Estate, to one single Rate besides the 
Poll/' 1 In 1700 it was enacted that no person, coming to 
reside in a town, although otherwise qualified, should be al- 
lowed to participate in town elections until he had applied to 
the selectmen of the town for admission as an inhabitant, and 
had been accepted by the town authorities; 2 and in 1722, 
when a question had arisen whether the twenty pounds quali- 
fication applied to freeholders as well as other inhabitants, 
the general court ordered that the fixed property qualification 
be required of all town voters. 3 After this date there was 
no change in the local suffrage qualification, although a num- 
ber of administrative features were introduced; at twenty 
pounds taxable property the qualification remained during 
the entire provincial period. 

B. Church Elections. 
According to the theory of church organization adopted by 
the Puritans the members of the church possessed the right 
to choose their own ecclesiastical officers. But this wide 
liberty early brought too great a diversity of opinions and 
doctrines among the clergy, and led to the limitation, both 
in Plymouth and Massachusetts, of the choice of the church 
to " approved" ministers, 4 that is, those acceptable to the 
ruling religious classes. The inevitable evils of association 
of town and church called forth the following enactment in 
Massachusetts, which gives the ideal of ecclesiastical elec- 
tions in the colony : — 

1 October 12, 1692, Session Lazvs, 37. 

2 May 29, 1700, Session Laws, 203, 204. "No person whatsoever 
coming to reside or dwell within any Town in this Province, (other 
than Freeholders or Proprietors of Land in such Town, or those born, 
or that have served an Apprenticeship there, and have not removed 
and become Inhabitants elsewhere) shall be admitted to the privilege 
of Election in such Town (though otherwise qualified)," unless he shall 
apply for and obtain the approbation of the selectmen. 

3 May 30, 1722, Session Laws, 367. 
* Plymouth Records, Laws, 67. 



364 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

" Every Church hath free liberty of Calling, Election and Ordination 
of all her Officers, from time to time, provided they be able, pious, and 
Orthodox: For the better explanation of the said Law, and as an 
addition thereunto, this Court doth Order and Declare, and be it 
hereby Ordered and Enacted, that by the Church, is to be meant, such 
as are in full Communion only; . . . and that no Inhabitant in any 
Town shall challenge a right unto or act in the Calling or Election of 
such Officer or Minister, until he be in full communion, upon the 
penalty of being accounted a disturber of peace and order." ■ 

Under the charter of 1691 a change was made in the 
method of choosing the minister. This may have been due 
to an appreciation of the inconsistency in permitting a choice 
by the church-members only, and the collection of church- 
rates from all the town inhabitants. The new act of 1692 
provided that orthodox ministers could be chosen in each 
town by the " major part of the Inhabitants" in town-meet- 
ing, and that all the town should be obliged to pay towards 
his support. 2 Not six months later this election by b 
meeting was changed to a choice by the " major part of such 
Inhabitants as do there usually attend on the Publick V 
ship of God, and are by Law duly qualified for Voting in 
Town Affairs." 3 In 1695 another change was made. 4 The 
minister was first to be chosen by the church, and then sub- 
mitted to the qualified inhabitants of the town ; 5 and in 
case of disapprobation by the town, a council from the 
neighboring churches could decide finally. 

The injustice of excluding any of the qualified taxpayers 
from a voice in the choice of minister was thus avoided. On 
the other hand, early in the eighteenth century, certain dis- 
senting sects were released from taxation for the established 
ministers upon condition that they would support and regu- 
larly attend public worship according to their own bel: 
To allow these persons to participate in the town elections of 
ministers would be equally unfair; and in 1728 an act which 

1 Code of 1672, 46. 

2 Session Laws, 35. 

3 February 8, 1692-93, Reprint of 1699, 39, 40. 

4 May 29, 1695, ibid., 81. 

8 Members of the church might, of course, vote in the church election 
and in the town election. 



The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 365 

exempted them from paying church taxes, also debarred 
them from voting in the towns upon any church matters. 1 

C. Militia Elections. 

The Puritan colonies, with the exception of New Haven, 2 
granted wider privileges in the choice of militia officers than 
in any other form of popular elections. Almost universally 
the choice of these officers was left to all the soldiers of the 
company or regiment. Thus Massachusetts in 1636 provided 
that a colonel and lieutenant-colonel should be chosen by 
the " men" of each regiment and submitted to the general 
court for approval ; while the officers lower in rank were to 
be nominated by the respective towns, and the council was 
directed to select the incumbent from the names submitted 
to them. 3 The elective process is made more definite by an 
order of March 9, 1636-7, which provided that 

" All persons of any trayned band, both freemen & others, who have 
taken the oath of residents, or shall take the same, & being no cove- 
nant servant in household w th any other, shall have their votes in 
nomination of those p'sons who are to bee appointed captaines, or other 
inferior officers of the same band, p'vided they nominate none but 
such as shalbe freemen; for it is the intent & order of the Court that 
no person shall henceforth bee chosen to any office in the comon- 
wealth but such as is a freeman." 4 

It was provided in 1647 tnat a ^ freemen whether exempt 
from militia service or not, should have a vote in the choice 

*May 29, 1728, Session Laws, 405. 

2 See post. 

3 Mass. Col. Rec, I, 187. 

'Ibid., 188. This liberal suffrage was not extended to the choice of 
sergeant-major-general, who, in 1643, was to be chosen by the body 
of freemen at the annual court of elections, nor to the election of the 
sergeant-majors in the shires. In the latter case the deputies were to 
nominate to their towns suitable freemen for the position, and the 
freemen of the towns were to vote by ballot for these nominees or for 
any other freemen (ibid., II, 49, 5o). Two years later the sergeant- 
majors could be chosen not only by freemen, but by "all yt have 
taken ye oath of fidelity, or shall take it before ye election (except 
servants or unsetled p'sons)" (ibid., 117)- 



366 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

of military officers. 1 After 1656, a similar privilege was ex- 
tended to householders ; and the militia suffrage until abol- 
ished by the general court was extended to every freeman, 
householder, and listed soldier who had taken the oath of 
fidelity. 2 

There was some doubt, however, as to the right of the 
general court to delegate the choice of militia officers to the 
voters; and in 1669 " the Court considering the direction" 
of the patent, ordered that all commissioned officers except 
the major-general and " Admiral by Sea," should be chosen 
by the general court; and the inferior officers appointed by 
the commissioned officers. 3 In this way popular elections for 
militia officers were discontinued, although at a later date the 
committee upon militia in each town was authorized to pre- 
sent to the general court the names of two or three proper 
persons for each office. Formal militia elections ceased in 
1669, not to be resumed for over a hundred years. 

In Plymouth military officers above the grade of ser- 
geant were to be chosen by the towns in a plural number and 
selections made by the general court; the inferior officers 
were to be appointed by the higher officers with the " consent 
of the Body" (of the soldiers?). 4 In practice even the 
higher officers appear to have been chosen by the train 
bands; 5 but not until 1667 was the following order con- 
cerning these elections passed : " In reference to milletary 
concernments It is enacted by the Court that noe single 
p'sons vnder twenty yeares of age either children or servants 
shall voate as to that accompt or any that are not settled 
Inhabitants of that place and have taken the oath of fideli- 
tie." 6 This continued the basis of such elections until the 
province charter of 1691 gave the appointment of military 
officers to the governor and council. 

1 Mass. Col. Rec, I, 191, 222. 

a Code of 1660, 56. 

'Mass. Col. Rec, IV, Pt. II, 422; Code of 1672, 116. 

4 Plymouth Records, Laws, 39. 

6 Court Records, III, 89. 

• Plymouth Records, Laws, 219. 



The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 367 

D. Voting concerning Land Matters. 

It has been noted already that the Massachusetts town life 
had its origin at about the same time as the common owner- 
ship of lands; in some cases the land ownership antedated 
town organization, but almost universally the political and 
economic community developed together. At first the com- 
moners probably constituted the entire body politic of the 
town; and, until such time as the non-commoners acquired 
an undue influence over land matters, the subject of the com- 
mon lands was discussed in open town meeting. 1 Early or 
late, however, the distinction between the civil and the 
property rights of the inhabitants was established. The 
separation of the commoners from the non-commoners in 
the settling of land matters did not come at any one time 
throughout the colony; but each town worked out its own 
solution of the problem. It might come almost at the be- 
ginning of town life, or it might be deferred for several 
generations after the founding of the town; it might be 
accompanied with compromise grants of land to non-com- 
moners, or it might leave the latter altogether beyond the 
pale of participation in the common lands. 2 Thus in Water- 
town as early as 1635 the rights of commonage were re- 
stricted to those already possessing that right or purchasing 
it from a former holder; 3 in 165 1 an agreement was made 
between Charlestown and the settlers of Maiden that the 
rights of commonage in the latter place should be limited 
to the existing number of dwelling-houses ; 4 in Dorchester 
in 1642 a question of land cultivation in " the necke of 
Land" was settled by a vote of the original lot-holders in 
the " neck," and where a man had purchased more than one 
lot he was entitled to a proportionate voice in the manage- 
ment of the commons. 5 On the other hand, in Haverhill 
the town legislated upon land matters for fifty years after 

'Egleston, /. H. U. Stud., IV, 581, 582. 

2 Ibid., 585, 586. 

3 Bond, Watertown, II, 995. 

4 Corey, Maiden, no. 

'Rept. Boston Rec. Com., IV, 49, 99- 



368 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

the settlement, 1 and frequent contests took place between 
the proprietors and the non-commoners. 

The general court early passed orders regulating the care 
of common lands. Thus, in 1643, it placed the directioi 
common fields, that were fenced and used for the raising of 
grain, in the control of " those who have the great 1 " quai 
in such feilds;" 2 and after a short interval in which the 
decision of these matters was left to the selectmen or free- 
men of the towns, 3 this principle of voting in proportioi 
the share held, was re-affirmed. 4 By later orders of the 
court the number of voters upon matters relating to 
town commons was limited to the original proprietors or 
their successors and such as had received grants from the 
town or had purchased another person's share. 5 In 
Plymouth, on the other hand, not until 1682 were meet- 
ings of land proprietors distinct from the towns legally 
authorized. 6 

But no uniform method of voting upon such matters ap- 
pears to have been adopted before 1692. The Plymouth 
order of 1682 appears to have provided for a majority 
according to the number of proprietors, 7 and within the 
Massachusetts towns also it was sometimes the individual, 
not the amount of his interest, which determined the v 
But as time went on the property interest became stronger; 
the town meetings and the non-commoners lost their share 
in the control of land affairs, and at last these matters came 
to be settled in distinct meetings of the proprietors, where 
each man was entitled to an influence proportionate to the 
amount of his interest in the lands. The transition from 
the individual to the property basis is shown in a lav, 
1692 which provided for voting in proprietors' meetings 
according to each man's interest, where such interest had 

1 Chase, Haverhill, 204, 215, 251 ff. 

2 Mass. Col. Rec., II, 39; 10 May, 1643. 

• Ibid., 49; 17 Oct., 1643. 

* Ibid., 195; 26 May, 1647. 

B Ibid., IV, Pt. I, 274, 275, 417. 

6 Plymouth Records, Laws, 257. 

7 Ibid. 

8 Corey, Maiden, 368. 376; Coffin. Newbury, 140, 144. 



The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 369 

been determined; and for voting as individuals where no 
such determination had been reached. 1 

Thus the cycle of change was completed; the control of 
the land, originally obtained by a group of partners, was 
returned to them or to their lawful successors. The con- 
fusion of economic and political interests in the early activity 
of the towns gave way to a distinct separation of the two 
phases of town life ; and even the equal sharing of all pro- 
prietors was displaced by an influence graded according to 
wealth. The participation of all the inhabitants in the use, 
control and ownership of land — that economic democracy 
so common in the colonies — was giving way to the laissez 
faire doctrine of private ownership of land. The communal 
lands were divided into shares, distributed to the proprietors, 
or to the freeholders, or, in a few cases, to all the inhabi- 
tants; and the village community based upon land ceased 
to exist. The town abdicated to its citizens the control of 
the commons. 

1 Session Laws, 1692, 38. 



24 



CHAPTER XII. 

The Suffrage in New Hampshire. 

New Hampshire's earliest political organization had 
origin, as was so frequently the case in New England, in 
the voluntary association of actual settlers. English pat< 
and non-resident proprietors played only a meagre part in 
the early government of the colony. Of the four principal 
settlements, one, Hampton, was from the first considr 
part of Massachusetts and was settled in order to hold the 
northern territory ; 1 the other three, Dover, Exeter, and 
Strawberry Bank (Portsmouth), were self-originative politi- 
cal entities. Exeter was settled by Wheelwright and 
fellow-Antinomians from Massachusetts, and on July 
1639, they adopted the following interesting basis of govern- 
ment: 

"Whereas it has pleased the lord to move the heart of our Di 
Soveraigne Charles, by the grace of god King of England, Scotland 
France & Ireland, to grant license & liberty to sundry of his sul» 
to plant them selves in the Westerne partes of America ; Wee 
loyall subjects, brethren of the church of Exceter, situate & lying upon 
the river of Piscataquacke \v th other inhabitants there considering 
w th our selves the holy will of god and our owne necessity that we 
should not live w tn out wholsome lawes & civil government am< 
us, of w n we are altogether destitute, doe in the name of Chi 
the sight of god combine our selves together, to erect & set up 
amongst us such government as shall be to our best discerning, a. 
able to the will of god, professing our selves subjects to our £ 
eraigne Lord King Charles according to the libertys of our Em. 
Colony of Massachusetts & binding our selves solemnly by the g 
& helpe of Christ & in his name & feare to submit our selves to 
godly & christian laws as are established in the Realme of En^' 
to our best knowledge, & to all other such lawes \v h shall upon goo< 
grounds be made & inacted amongst us according to god y l 
live quietly & peaceablely together in all godlyness and hone - 

1 J. Dow, History of the Town of Hampton, 6-9. 

2 July 4, 1639; C. H. Bell. History of the Town of Exeter, . 
Hampshire Provincial Laws, I, 744. 

37o 



The Suffrage in New Hampshire. 371 

The inhabitants near Dover, tinder the Hilton patent, also 
found themselves without an adequate organization, and, 
in 1640, adopted a frame similar in its political features to 
that of Exeter, but lacking the frequent allusions to the 
Deity which the Exeter document contained. 

"Whereas sundry mischiefs and inconveniences have befallen us, 
and more and greater may, in regard of want of civil government, hit 
most gracious Majesty having settled no order for us to our knowl- 
edge: We, whose names are unwritten, being inhabitants upon the 
river Piscataqua, having voluntarily agreed to combine ourselves into 
a body politic, that we may the more comfortably enjoy the benefit 
of his Majesty's laws, together with all such laws as shall be con- 
cluded by a major part of the freemen of our Society, in case they be 
not repugnant to the laws of England, and administered in behalf of 
his majesty. And this we have mutually promised and engaged to 
do, and so continue till his excellent Majesty shall give other orders 
concerning us. . . ." * 

In a similar manner the settlers at Strawberry Bank (or 
Portsmouth) appear to have formed an organization, — 
although the text of the agreement has not been pre- 
served, — and elected a governor and two assistants. 2 At 
the same time they chose an Episcopal minister, made a 
grant of land for glebe purposes, and appointed two church- 
wardens. 3 

These agreements and the simple rules exacted under 
them contain nearly all the political activity which New 
Hampshire produced before the union with Massachusetts; 
and these associations, it is interesting to note, were not 
entered upon until a number of years after the first settle- 
ment in 1623. It is remarkable also, that these documents, 
so far as preserved, do not ignore the English king and 
government as was done in several cases in New Haven 
and Rhode Island, but explicitly affirm the allegiance due 
to the monarch. No general government was erected by 
these local agreements, as was the case in Connecticut; the 

a Oct. 22, 1640; New Hampshire Provincial Papers, I, 126; N. H. 
Laws, I, 746. 
J N. Adams, Annals of Portsmouth, 26, 27; N. H. Laws, I, 744- 
8 Adams, Portsmouth, 27. 




The Suffrage Fra>ichise in the English Colonies. 



inhabitants might be called freemen of the distinct towns, 
but not of a larger political entity. 

In Dover and Portsmouth the inhabitants were n< 
tent with their indigenous governments, which do not ap- 
pear to have been well administered; 1 and as early as r 
they made overtures to Massachusetts for a union v 
that colony. Legal, ecclesiastical, and even forcible o 
tests occurred in the New Hampshire towns ; 2 and, tired at 
last of their own disorder, Dover and Portsmouth, in Ju 
1 64 1, accepted the terms of Massachusetts for admission 
into the Bay colony. 3 The settlers were to be accounted 
inhabitants of Massachusetts; local courts were establis: 
for the towns; the inhabitants were exempted from ; 
public charges except for purposes directly affecting them- 
selves ; and " also the inhabitants there are alowed to send 
two deputies from the whole ryver to the Court at Boston 

At first the Massachusetts authorities would have ex- 
tended their principle of religious restrictions upon the - 
frage to the new territory, and in May, 1642, it was pro- 
vided " that it shalbee in the power of any Co r t then 
admit & sweare freemen, so they bee qualified according to 
law." 5 But such a policy would have been almost a pro- 
hibitive one, and in the fall of the same year a more liberal 
rule was adopted according to which 

" all the p'sent inhabitants of Pascataq [= Dover and Portsmouth] 
who formerly were free there shall have liberty of freemen in their 
severall townes to manage all their towne affairs, & shall each townc 
send a deputy to the Gen r all Court, though they bee not at p' 
church members." 6 

A year later, Exeter also was admitted as a Massachu-* 
tow r n, 7 the excommunicate Wheelwright going in exile into 
the Maine territory. 8 

1 J. Belknap, History of New Hampshire, I, 54. 

2 Palfrey, New England, I, 587-592. 

8 Mass. Col. Rec., I, 324, 332. 

* Ibid., 342. 

'Ibid., II, 5. 

8 Ibid., 29. 

'Ibid., 37, 38, 43- 

8 Palfrey, I, 593. 



The Suffrage in New Hampshire. 373 

For almost forty years the New Hampshire settlements 
remained under Massachusetts jurisdiction, during which 
time the laws of the latter colony were enforced in the 
northern towns. No further concessions in the matter of 
the suffrage appear to have been granted ; and the qualifica- 
tions of the voters in Massachusetts were required of voters 
in the New Hampshire towns, except in the case of those 
who were not church-members at the time of the union. 1 

In 1677, partly through the instrumentality of Edward 
Randolph, a decision was obtained from the English chief 
justices to the effect that the New Hampshire towns were 
outside the jurisdiction of Massachusetts, and also that 
Mason had no political rights in the settlement. 2 This de- 
cision left it to the Crown of England to give a proper 
form of government to the colony. Accordingly, in Sep- 
tember, 1679, a commission was executed for a president 
and six named councillors; and these officers were given 
the privilege of adopting " such rules and methods (as to 
the persons who are to chuse their Deputies and ye time and 
place of meeting) as they shall judge most conveinent." 3 
In exercising this power President Cutt and his council 
adopted a novel and by no means popular method of deter- 
mining the voters in the four towns. After obtaining from 
the town selectmen a list of the names and estates of the 
inhabitants, the president and council proceeded to select by 
name from the lists those persons who should be privileged 
to vote in the first election for assemblymen. 4 No general 
qualifications for voters were stated, but the simple will of 
the governing board gave the right of the suffrage to one 
man and withheld it from another. The proportion of 
voters, 209 out of a population of about four thousand, 5 was 
not in itself so low as to cause dissatisfaction, but the arbi- 
trary method of selecting the voters, and the evident dis- 

1 See ante under Maine. 

2 Belknap, New Hampshire, I, 164-169. 

8 N. H. Provincial Papers, I, 373 ; N. H. Laws, I, 6. 

*N. H. Laws, I, 11-15 note, 779. Seventy-one persons were named 
as voters in Portsmouth, 57 in Hampton, 20 in Exeter, and 61 in 
Dover; or 209 in all. 

6 Ibid., lix, 776. 



374 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

crimination both against persons * and places 2 was sufnV 
to make the plan of the president and council highly un- 
popular. 

An assembly chosen in this way, " in effect chosen by the 
Councell," ; * proceeded to pass a number of laws which go 
under the name of Cutt's Code. Among these is one relating 
to the subject of suffrage, which continued the Massachu- 
setts idea of freemanship, and also adopted a qualifier 
for freemen somewhat similar to the Massachusetts quali- 
fication of town voters. The law reads : 

" Freemen. 

"8. It is ordered by this Assembly and the authority thereot 
all Englishmen, being Protestants, yt are settled Inhabitants and I 
holders in any towne of this Province, of ye age of 24 years, 
viceous in life but of honest and good conversation, and such as have 
20 /. Rateable estate w tb out heads of persons having also taken the 
oath of allegiance to his Maj s , and no others shall be admitted to ye 
liberty of being freemen of this Province, and to give their vote 
the choice of Deputies for the General Assembly, Constables, Select- 
men, Jurors and other officers and concernes in ye townes where 
dwell." . . . 4 

In one respect, in that it limited the suffrage to freeholders 
the New Hampshire act was more restrictive than the Massa- 
chusetts local suffrage law of 1658. It appears to differ 
by the insertion of the word Protestant, but this is not a real 
difference, for it is altogether unlikely that Catholics \\ 
permitted to vote in Massachusetts. The law was enforced 
out a short time, as it was repealed, together with all the 
other legislation of the Cutt's Code by the English king. 5 

Governor Cranfield, whose commission was dated M 
1682, 6 was given no volition in the selection of voters, but 

¥ 

1 N. H. Laws, I, 779. 

2 " In Townes of above Two hundred houses not above Twenty per- 
sons permitted to vote," — evidently referring to Exeter, as thi- 

the only town which had so small a number (Randolph Papers, Prince 
Soc. ed., Ill, 106, 107). 

8 N. H. Prov. Papers, I, 396; Laws, I. 25, 26. 

4 Ibid. 

5 N. H. Laws, I, 45. 

6 N. H. Prov. Papers, I, 433"443 I Laws, I, 48-56. 



The Suffrage in New Hampshire. 375 

was directed to hold general assemblies composed of depu- 
ties " duely elected by the Major parte of the ffree holders;" 
and from his writs we learn that he imposed no further 
qualification than that of freeholdership. 1 In the code which 
bears the governor's name, little was added to the general 
clause of the governor's commission. Thereafter, jurors, 
assemblymen and trustees or overseers of the towns were to 
be elected by " all persons, settled inhabitants & freeholders 
in any Town of this Province of Twenty one years, and 
no other." 2 No attempt was made to specify the size or 
value of the freehold until after the rule of Dudley and 
Andros over the Dominion of New England. 

The overthrow of Andros left the New Hampshire towns 
without any general government; and to make some pro- 
vision for their local political needs, delegates from the 
four towns met in January, 1689-90 and adopted a form 
of self-government. The steps in the case of New Hamp- 
shire differed from the acts of revolution in the other New 
England colonies, where the officers under the earlier char- 
ters were reinstated after the overthrow of Andros; but 
it was similar to the course of events in New York and 
Maryland. According to the New Hampshire frame, the 
officers were to be a president, secretary, treasurer, a council 
of ten apportioned roughly according to the importance of 
the towns, and an assembly of not more than three persons 
from each town. All these officers were to be elected " by 
the mager vot of the Inhabetants" of the towns. 3 But this 
union, like the earlier forms of government in the towns, 
was not sufficiently strong to stand against the foreign and 
internal foes of the community; and again an appeal was 
made for union with Massachusetts. 4 The latter colony 
accepted the offer, and for two more years the colonies were 
united. All through the history of New Hampshire, the 
opposition to the union with Massachusetts arose mainly 
in England or from the representatives of the English gov- 
ernment or of English proprietors. The bulk of the settlers 

1 See election writ in N. H. Prov. Papers, I, 502 ; Laws, I, 78. 

'Laws, I, 63. 

3 A r . H. Laws, I, 260, 853, 854- 

*Ibid.; N. H. Prov. Papers, II, 30-46. 



376 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

appear satisfied with the Massachusetts form of government. 
The petition of February, 1689-90, for the union was signed 
by three hundred and seventy-two persons, 1 who must 1 
included the greater part of the freeholders of the four 
towns. 

In 1692 the government was resumed by the Crown, and 
again in his commission the royal governor was directed to 
assemble the deputies of the freeholders ; 2 indeed, he 
specially instructed to " take care that the members of the 
Assembly be elected only by freeholders, as being n 
agreeable to the custom of England, to which you are, as 
near as may be, to conform yourself." 3 In spite of this | 
vision, and a similar one in the commission and instruct 
of Governor Bellomont, 4 the elections do not appear to 1 
been limited to freeholders. In 1697 writs of election s; 
fled the " freemen" of the towns as electors ; 5 and in 
another case described the voters as " Freehold" and other 
Inhabitants of their several Towns, duly qualified." The 
earliest law extending the suffrage to non-freeholders which 
has been noticed is one of August, 1699. 7 This retained the 
English qualification of forty shilling freehold, but linked 
with it a personal property alternative : 

" No person Inhabiting within this Province, other than Freehold- 
ers of the value or income of Forty shillings per Annum or upwards 
in Land, or worth Fifty Pounds sterling at the least in personal E- 
shall have any vote in the Election of Representatives, or be capable 
of being Elected to serve in the General Assembly." 

It was the same qualification as that set by the Massachu- 
provincial charter. 8 

1 N. H. Prov. Papers, II, 46. It is interesting to notice that Massa- 
chusetts permitted a certain degree of local legislation and represen- 
tation in the assessing and collection of taxes (N. H. Laws, I, 482). 

2 N. H. Prov. Papers, II, 58. 

8 Ibid., 64; Laws, I, 510. 

4 Laws, I, 614, 623. 

5 N. H. Prov. Papers, II, 237, 263. 
*Ibid., 283, 284. 

"Ibid., Ill, 216, 217. 

8 For election writ under this law referring to " Freeholders and 
other Inhabitants," see N. H. Laws, I, 637. 



The Suffrage in New Hampshire. 377 

For almost a generation there was no change from this 
law. But in 1727 a new and comprehensive election law, 
narrowing the suffrage qualifications, was passed. This act 
provided for triennial meetings of the legislature; required 
members of the legislature to possess three hundred pounds 
value of real estate ; and declared that 

"no person shall have the liberty of voting in the choice of repre- 
sentatives, other than such who has a real estate of the value of fifty 
pounds within the town, parish, or precinct where such election shall 
be." 1 

But a landholder might vote in a place even if he were not 
an inhabitant, and, presumably, could vote in several towns 
if he held land in each. After the passage of this act, and it 
was not modified during the provincial period, no landless 
man could vote, and no freeholder unless he held land to 
the value of fifty pounds. 

The facts of local suffrage in New Hampshire do not 
differ much from those of Massachusetts. Before the first 
union with the latter colony there were no general elections, 
and the towns were practically independent. Under the rule 
of Massachusetts her laws respecting local suffrage were 
enforced among the northern towns. Not until after 1680, 
therefore, need we note any forms of local elections. Under 
Cutt's Code, which applied the term freemen to the pro- 
vincial elections, the same name was given to the voters 
in the towns, but no explanation or definition of the term 
was made. 2 Later, under the rule of Andros, local elections 
were the only ones permitted throughout the Dominion of 
New England, and these were to be held by the " inhabi- 
tants" of the several towns. 3 The same term is applied to 
town voters as late as 1694, 4 two years after the assembly 
had limited the local suffrage to freeholders. It is likely 
that these variations in terminology did not connote for 

1 Acts and Laws of His Majesty's Province of New-Hampshire, 
Portsmouth, 1771, p. 166. 

2 N. H. Prov. Papers, I, 403; Laws, I, 32, 33. The voters were 
simply "ye freemen of each Towne." 

8 Conn. Col. Rec, III, 427-429. 

4 X. H. Prov. Papers, II, 73, 131, 132, 330- 



378 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

different classes throughout the towns. Probably both free- 
men and inhabitants were nearly identical with the class of 
freeholders. 

In 1692 the assembly excluded from voting in town meet- 
ings all who were not freeholders, 1 and even required the 
land-holding qualification in the elections of ministers, a 
most unusual provision. 2 In 1718 and 1719 the assembly 
adopted a large part of the Massachusetts legislation con- 
cerning local elections. 3 By the laws of these years the local 
suffrage was extended to " freeholders and other inhabi- 
tants of each tow r n rateable at twenty pounds estate, to one 
single rate, beside the poll." The Massachusetts restriction 
upon strangers was adopted verbatim; only after formal 
admission by the town or the selectmen might a stranger, 
although otherwise qualified, be admitted to a vote in town 
affairs. 4 In a similar way the voting in meetings of land 
proprietors was modelled upon the laws of Massachusetts; 
and where the individual's interest in the common lands 
had been ascertained the votes were to be proportions 
this interest ; where the proportion had not been determined, 
each proprietor had an equal voice with all the otlv 
These laws gave a basis for voting in local elections which 
was changed but slightly before the Revolution. The only 
important change was the substitution, in 1770, of a I 
paying qualification in place of the property-holding quali- 
fication (£20) of the law of 17 19. The new act provided 
that every male person who paid thirty shillings taxes, in- 
cluding a poll-tax of eighteen shillings, should be " deemed 
a legal voter in all affairs of the town or parish, where he 
dwells, except chusing Representatives.'' 6 This in turn 
was reduced in 1772, when a general reduction of the t: 
took place, to the payment of eighteen shillings taxes, in- 
cluding the poll-tax of twelve shillings. 7 

1 N. H. Prov. Papers, III, 167. 

2 Ibid., Ill, 189, 190. The latter act was repealed by the queen in 
1706. 

* Acts and Laws of New Hampshire (1771), 71, 123, 136-141- 

4 Taken from Massachusetts act of 1700. See ante. 

5 Massachusetts act of 1692. See ante. 

6 Acts and Laws of New Hampshire (1771). Temporary Law 

7 Temporary Laws, 58. 



The Suffrage in New Hampshire. 379 

The close relationship of New Hampshire to Massachu- 
setts is seen not only during the formal union of the two 
colonies, but also in the frequent adoption by New Hamp- 
shire of the laws of her stronger neighbor. There is, con- 
sequently, little of novelty to be noted in New Hampshire 
legislation. The most striking cases appear in the legislation 
of Cutt's assembly in 1680, where the exclusion of all but 
Protestants from the suffrage comes at a remarkably early 
date in colonial history, when usually it makes its appear- 
ance after the Revolution of 1688. The age requirement of 
twenty-four years, also contained in this code, was without 
doubt adopted from the Massachusetts law; but it had a 
widely different application from its use in that colony. In 
Massachusetts it simply applied to the small number of 
non-church-members who might be admitted to the fran- 
chise; in New Hampshire it was universally applicable. 
But these features were of slight duration. Another diver- 
gence from Massachusetts custom continued until Revolu- 
tionary times. This was the absolute limitation of the 
assembly suffrage after 1727 to freeholders possessing fifty 
pounds value of real estate. The province had adopted at 
first the qualification of the Massachusetts charter, — forty 
shillings freehold or fifty pounds personal estate; but this 
was narrowed down to the class of freeholders alone; and 
with this restriction was continued for almost fifty years of 
colonial history. 



CHAPTER XIII. 
The Suffrage in Connecticut. 

I. The River Towns to 1662. 

The settlers in the Connecticut valley were staunch Puri- 
tans ; they had formed a part of the political and ecclesia 
cal life of Massachusetts ; and in transferring their place of 
abode to the western valley they often retained their church 
organization and followed the advice of their pastors. 1 
in spite of the place which religion occupied in their live^ 
and we cannot say it was less than in the lives of the Punt 
they left behind in Massachusetts, — the Connecticut sett! 
did not adopt the Massachusetts limitation of political power 
to church-members. The laws of the Bay formed the model 
for much of the later legislation in Connecticut; the land 
system, the town organization, and the general government 
were drawn largely from Massachusetts experience ; but the 
feature of a formal ecclesiastical restriction of the suffrage 
was not carried westward. 

There is not, however, any evidence that the suffrage 
question was one of the reasons for the emigration to the 
Connecticut. 2 Winthrop does not mention this motive ; 
the apparent reasons for the exodus are the desire for m 
land, the favorable reports of the Connecticut country, the 
opposition to the measures of the ruling party in Massa- 
chusetts, and, perhaps, a covert antagonism between the I 
pastors, Cotton and Hooker. 3 The latter, indeed, in 
famous sermon in 1638, said, "The privilege of election, 
which belongs to the people, therefore must not be exercised 
according to their humors, but according to the ble- 

1 Judge Chamberlain, in Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc, Second Series 

2 C. F. Adams, in Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc, Second Series, VII, 180 n 

3 Winthrop, History of New England, ed. by Savage, I, 160; TV 
bull, History of Connecticut (ed. of 1898), I, 37-38 ; Doyle, English 
Colonies in America, Puritan Colonies, I, 154-155; Palfrey, His 

of New England, I, 449-450. 
380 



The Suffrage in Connecticut. 385 

sometimes one of these restrictions there seems no doubt, 1 
and particularly does this appear to be the case in view of 
the emigration of church congregations from Massachusetts 
to Connecticut. At Wethersfield, where, in 1640, there were 
only seven formal members of the church, 2 it is likely the 
other inhabitants were members of some church in New 
England, but had not yet organized themselves into church 
fellowship owing to the quarrels among the seven claiming 
to be the church. 3 In the early days, too, admission as an 
inhabitant of a town was contingent upon a man's ability to 
enter into the economic life of the community. The in- 
habitants who planned the settlement of Wethersfield re- 
quired their fellow " adventurers" to settle within the town 
before a certain date if they did not want to forfeit their 
interest in the town " devident." 4 

In Hartford the recipient of a grant of land was required 
to build upon it within twelve months after the grant ; if he 
removed within four years his lands were to be forfeited 
to the town ; but a sale was permitted either to the town or 
to a person approved by the town. 5 In Middletown a fixed 
term of residence and the erection and occupation of a 
tenantable house were required to hold title to town lots. 6 
That the towns exerted their privilege of refusing inhabi- 
tants is shown by the town records of Hartford, 7 but after 
admission there does not seem to be any way of excluding 
an inhabitant, for the Hartford town meeting offered ten 
pounds to an objectionable man and his wife if they would 
remove from the town. 8 

l New Haven Hist. Soc. Papers, III, 315; Andrews, /. H. U. Stud., 
VII, 83. 

1 Trumbull, I, 92-93. 

s New Haven would not have received some twenty-two of the 
Wethersfield men had they not been members of some "approved" 
congregation. 

*Conn. Col. Rec., 1636-1665, 4. 

5 Hartford Town Votes, I, 1 (printed in Vol. VI of the Connecticut 
Historical Society's Collections). 

'Conn. Col. Rec, 1636-1665, 249. 

7 Hartford Town Votes, I, 132, 148, 171, 196. 

'Ibid., 148. 

25 



386 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics 

Such restrictions were not, however, always enforced. 
Before 1657 many objectionable persons seem to have been 
adopted by the towns as inhabitants, 1 and the presence 
these persons led the general court to make the first property 
qualification upon the suffrage. The restriction was not 
made upon the freemen, but applied only to the " admitted 
inhabitants," to whom was given the right to vote for town 
deputies. The seventh fundamental, by an order of the court 
of February 26, 1656-7, was interpreted as granting the 
suffrage only to " householders that are one & twenty yeares 
of age, or haue bore office, or haue 30I. estate." 2 i 
limitation conformed to the English custom in respect to age 
and householding, but it went beyond that in the establish- 
ment of a legal property qualification for inhabitancy. In 
this form the suffrage for representatives was continued 
until 1662, when the terms of the new charter restricted such 
elections to the freemen alone. 3 

It has been seen that the fundamentals gave to the general 
court the power of admission of freemen. That body some- 
times exercised the power directly and sometimes delegated 
it to specific persons or officers. As early as October, 1639, 
Governor Haynes and a Mr. Wells were appointed by the 
court to confer with the planters at Pequonnocke (Strat- 
ford), and were empowered to administer the oath of fidelity 
to them and to " make such free as they see fitt." 4 A similai 
authorization was made shortly afterwards. 1 "' In 
a general power of admitting freemen was delegated to an> 
three magistrates, who were required to demand a certificate 
of the good character of the applicant; but their powei 
was limited to the time intervening before the next meet 

1 New Haven Hist. Soc. Papers, III, 301. 

2 Conn. Col. Rec., 1636-1665, 293. By the code of 1650 the cour 
had declared twenty-one years to be the legal age for giving of vote 
or performing legal acts {Rec. 1636-1665, 510). 

3 In 1660 the towns were forbidden to admit as inhabitar 
persons but " such as are knowne to be of an honest conversation 
{Conn. Col. Rec., 1636-1665, 351). 

* Conn. Col. Rec, 1636-1665, 36. 
'Ibid., 47- 



The Suffrage in Connecticut. 387 

of the general court. 1 The records do not show how many 
were admitted as freemen in this manner, but their number 
may have been considerable, for it does not seem probable 
that the twenty-three names of admitted freemen given in 
the records represent all the acceptable persons who came 
into Connecticut from 1639 to 1649. The order of the gen- 
eral court in 1657 requiring the town deputies to prepare a 
list of the names of freemen in their respective towns seems 
to point to the conclusion that the colony records are not 
complete on the subject. 2 

Perhaps it was some irregularity in the use of the dele- 
gated power of admitting freemen which led the court in 
1657 to enact that " those and only those" who were ap- 
proved by the general court should be made freemen. 
Applicants were further required to have " an affirmatiue 
certificate vnder the hands of all or the major part of the 
deputies in their seuerall townes, of their peaceable and 
honest conuersation." 3 It seems impossible to determine 
whether or not the admission of freemen by the magistrates 
continued up to the time of this act. The fact that 140 
freemen were admitted within the fifteen months follow- 
ing the passage of the act indicates either a large increase 
in the class of persons qualified for freemanship, or a sudden 
desire for that privilege, or that the general court was ex- 
ercising a function which previously had been performed 
by the magistrates. 4 The writer is inclined to accept the lat- 
ter view. 

In 1657 the court had imposed a property qualification 
upon voting inhabitants in the towns. Two years later, by 
an order of March 9, 1658-9, a similar restriction was 
placed upon the freemanship. An order of that date 
provided 

1 Conn. Col. Rec, 1636-1665, 139. The same order authorizes the 
administering of the oath of fidelity to all male persons over sixteen, 
years of age. 

*Conn. Col. Rec, 163&-1665, 290. 3 Ibid. 

* This number is more than half the entire number of recorded 
admissions between 1639 and 1662. The greatest number admitted at 
any previous session of the court was in May, 1654, when thirty-six 
freemen were accepted (Rec, 256). 



388 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

" That for the future none shalbe p r sented to be made free- 
men in this Jurisdiction, or haue the priuilidge of freedome 
conferd vpon them, vntil they haue fulfild the age of twenty 
one years and haue 30I. of proper personal estate, or haue 
borne office in the Comon wealth ; such persons quallified as 
before, and being men of an honest and peaceable conver- 
sation, shalbe p r sented in an ord r ly way at the General Court 
in October, yearly, to p r vent tumult and trouble at the Court 
of Election." l 

The reasons for the passage of this act are not given in the 
contemporary documents. Apparently it was called forth by 
the rapid growth of the freeman class which had taken place 
in the preceding two years. The natural feeling may also 
have arisen that the freemen voters should not possess a 
lower qualification than that which had lately been imposed 
upon those voting by right of inhabitancy. 

The property qualification thus established was not identi- 
cal with that imposed upon town inhabitants. In the latter 
case the requirement was thirty pounds " estate;" while in 
the new act it was the same amount of " proper personal 
estate." This has been interpreted by students of the pei 
as meaning a real estate qualification for town inhabit:, 
and a personal property requirement for the freemansi 
Mr. Bronson 3 has pointed out that thirty pounds of personal 
property was a comparatively large sum for that time, when 
the average property of a taxable person was sixty pounds, 
made up largely of real estate. The new qualification nv 
indeed, have been a very high one, for it practically 1 
hibited further accessions to the freemanship. Within 
next two and a half years, or until the charter went 
operation in October, 1662, there are only three recorder 
admissions of freemen. The one hundred and forty ad 
missions in the fifteen months preceding the passage of thi 
act, and the three freemen admitted in the two and a hal 
years following, give us a very definite idea of the succes 
of the new restrictive legislation. If the ideal of the genera 

1 Conn. Col. Rec, 1636-1665, 331. 

'Bronson, New Haven Hist. Soc. Papers, III, 315; Andrews, /. h 
U. Stud., VII, 87. 
*Op. cit. 



The Suffrage in Connecticut. 389 

court was the exclusion of all other persons from the free- 
manship, that ideal was attained. In justice to the framers 
of the law, however, it may be believed that the operation of 
the act was more exclusive than they desired. At least we 
must remember that one of the first acts under the new 
charter was the passage of a law putting the freemanship 
on a far less aristocratic basis. 1 

While there was no formal religious qualification for 
voters in Connecticut, yet, on the other hand, there was no 
such separation of church and state as was established by 
Williams in Rhode Island. Hooker, indeed, had said that 
the privilege of election, although given by God to the 
people, " must not be exercised according to their humors, 
but according to the blessed will and law of God." 2 " To 
the first settlers in Connecticut," says a late writer, " civil 
and ecclesiastical affairs were convertible terms. The town- 
ship and the church were coterminous : the town, by which 
term, as distinguished from the territorial township, was 
meant the body of voters within the township, settled civil 
and ecclesiastical affairs indifferently in the same town meet- 
ing ; and as about all the voters were at first church-members 
and agreed closely in creed and methods, the dual system 
produced little friction for a time." 3 Palfrey thought it 
reasonable to believe " that church-membership — or, to 
speak more precisely, a religious character in the candidate, 
such as naturally led to church-membership, and was com- 
monly found in union with it — was also in Plymouth and 
Connecticut much regarded by the electors as a qualifica- 
tion of candidates for citizenship." 4 It is almost the uni- 
versal opinion of Connecticut historians that the actual ad- 
ministration of the freeman principle in that colony led at 
first to virtually the same restrictions upon the suffrage as 
existed in New Haven or Massachusetts. 5 

1 See post, 408. 

2 Palfrey, New England, I, 537. 

3 Johnston, Connecticut, 2.2.0. 

* Palfrey, New England, II, 8. 

5 A further proof of this opinion is to be seen in the proposition of 
Connecticut made during the negotiations with New Haven that candi- 
dates for freemanship be "men of a religious carriage, visibly soe" 
(New Haven Col. Rec, 1653-1665, 495). 



39° The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

The number of original freemen in 1639 ls not known, but 
their number was increased very slowly. Out of a total in 
crease in population between 1639 and 1662 of about 3000 
persons, only 229 are recorded as having been admitted to 
the freemanship. 1 That is, for twenty-three years only one 
person in thirteen of the new population was made a free- 
man of the corporation. In the first ten years there are only 
twenty-three recorded admissions; and of the remaining 
ones, more than half were admitted by the general court 
between 1657 and 1659. Yet it is probable that, owing to 
the more liberal town suffrage, and the right of town in- 
habitants to vote for the town representatives in the general 
court, the limitations upon the freemanship were not felt 
so heavily as in Massachusetts. It is plain, too, that C 
necticut was looked upon as more liberal than New Ha 
Evidently, Hooker's plan of theocratic government was 
more practicable than those of Cotton and Davenport. 

II. The Suffrage in New Haven before the Union : 

Connecticut. 

The well-known peculiarity of the New Haven colony is 
the limitation of political power to those who were church- 
members. In New Haven, even more fully than in Massa- 
chusetts, did the church-members control the entire life of 
the community. In Massachusetts although participation 
in the colonial elections was granted only to freemen, 
non-freemen were sometimes given a part in the choice of 
town or militia officers ; but in New Haven the attempt was 
made to limit the suffrage under any or all conditions — with 
the single exception of proprietary claims to lands — to those 
who were members of some approved church. In no other 
settlement on the continent was the theoretical ideal of a 
community of church-members so nearly attained ; nowhere 
else were the lines between political power and disfranchise- 
ment so clearly and sharply drawn. Yet it must be said that 
New Haven was content with her religious qualification: 

1 Bronson, op. cit., 313. There may have been others admitted in the 
irregular way by officers of the company, but no record has been found 
of such persons. 



The Suffrage in Connecticut. 391 

this was the supreme test of good citizenship, and it was the 
only one. She did not link to it any freehold or personal 
property prerequisite ; all were invited " to come in by the 
doore" of the church ; x every one was discouraged from 
" disorderly or uncomely attempts to climbe up another 
way." 

The New Haven towns, like many other examples in 
America, appear to have sprung from the voluntary and 
spontaneous association of a group of Englishmen. The 
first compact may have been of a business nature when the 
friends contributed according to their ability towards the 
common expenses ; or it may have been of a religious char- 
acter, the brotherhood bond of members of a common 
church. Such voluntary economic or ecclesiastical associa- 
tions before actual settlement are to be seen in the cases 
of New Haven proper, 2 in Milford, 3 Guilford, 4 and South- 
old. 5 But the purely personal compact of business co- 
partners, or the friendly tie of common church-membership 
must be replaced either before 6 or soon after settlement by 
a more formal organization both of church and state. The 
association must be changed from a voluntary personal one 
to a more definite political organization whose jurisdiction in 
civil and religious affairs would be co-extensive with the 
territory of the town. 7 This transition was accomplished 
first in the town of New Haven according to a method later 
adopted in the neighboring towns. 

The meeting of the New Haven planters on June 4, 1639, 
which tradition says was held in Mr. Newman's barn, acting 
under the advice of Minister Davenport, took the first steps 
for the " settling ciuill Gouernmt according to God." 8 

1 New Haven Colonial Records, 1653-1665, 403-404. 
'New Haven Hist. Soc. Papers, I, 12. 
* Atwater, History of New Haven Colony, 155. 

'Steiner, History of Guilford and Madison, Conn., 29; Atwater, 
New Haven, 161. 
8 Ibid., 171-173. 

6 See grant of " civil power for the administration of justice and the 
preservation of peace" in Guilford; Steiner, Guilford, 29. 

7 Compare C. F. Adams, The Genesis of Massachusetts Towns, Mass. 
Hist. Soc. Proc, Second Series, VII, 179-187. 

8 New Haven Col. Rec, 1638-1649, 11 ff. 



39 2 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

Here the well-known queries of Davenport were unani- 
mously answered in the affirmative by the body of planters. 
It was agreed that " the Scripturs doe holde forth a perfect 
rule for the direction and gouernmt of all men in all 
duet[ies] w c h they are to per forme to God and men as . 
in the gou r mt of famylyes and comonwealths as in ma1 
of the chur[ch]." So likewise all accepted the earlier 
covenant they had made that the rules of scripture should 
be observed in all " publique offices w c h concerne ciuill 
order, as choyce of magistrates and officers, makeing and re- 
pealing of lawes, devideing allottm ts of inheritance and all 
things of a like nature." Upon the third query all expressed 
themselves as desirous of admission to church-fellowship as 
soon as they were fitted therefor by God ; and the fourth in- 
quiry that such a civil order should be established as would 
secure the purity and peace of the religious ordinances was 
with equal unanimity adopted. 

In the fifth question there lay the whole theory of 
Haven theocratic government: "Whether Free Burge 
shalbe chosen out of chur. members?" The question 
carried unanimously ; but one man, perhaps Samuel Eaton. 1 
after the vote was taken, expressed a partial dissent from 
the decision. The objections were answered by Davenport 
and Theophilus Eaton, whose arguments called forth ex- 
pressions of approval from some who owned they had not 
previously been quite fully satisfied of the justice of the 
restriction. And then by a second unanimous vote, this 
time undoubtedly with more spirit, 

" Mr. Rob* Newman was desired to write itt as an order 
wherevnto euery one thatt hereafter should be admitted here 
as planters should submitt and testefie the same by subscribing 
their names to the order, namely, that church members onely 
shall be free burgesses, and thatt they onely shall chuse magis- 
trates & officers among themselues to haue the power of trans- 
acting all the publique ciuill affayres of this Plantation, of 
makeing and repealing lawes, devideing of inheritances, de- 
cideing of differences thatt may arise and doeing all things or 
businesses of like nature." 2 

1 Atwater, New Haven, 99. 

2 New Haven Col. Rec., 1638-1649, 15. 



The Suffrage in Connecticut. 393 

This restriction of freemanship to church-members must 
be read in the light of the unanimous expression of the 
desire to enter church fellowship. All the adult planters 
were willing to enter the church when its organization 
should be completed, and in the light of this feeling the 
church-membership provision was not a limitation upon any 
of the men gathered in Mr. Newman's barn. Should all 
carry out their desire to enter the church, the suffrage would 
be co-extensive with the free planters. It would be, most 
likely, with respect to new-comers, that the rule would work 
hardship. The original settlers possessed a solidarity of feel- 
ing which had been the real reason for their previous asso- 
ciation; but would new arrivals or a rising generation pay 
such regard to the religious tenets which persecution had 
brought into the foreground of the Puritan's thinking? The 
history of the New Haven colony shows how difficult it was, 
in spite of great care in the admission of inhabitants, to 
maintain the homogeneity of sentiment so marked among the 
first settlers. 

After the consideration of the general foundations of 
church and state, the planters proceeded to select from their 
number certain persons to carry on the work of organization. 
The general meeting appointed twelve men for the " foun- 
dation work;" these selected seven "pillars" to organize 
a church. After they had completed this, and admitted 
others as church-members, the seven held a civil court at 
which those who were members of the new church or of 
some " approved" church were privileged to vote for civil 
officers. 1 At about the same time a " freeman's charge" or 
declaration of obedience to the government was composed. 2 

l New Haven Col. Rec., 1638-1649, 16-21; Atwater, New Haven, 
101-102. 
2 New Haven Col. Rec., 1638-1649, 19- 

" You shall neither plott, practise nor consent to any evill 
or hurt against this Jurisdiction, or any pte of it, or against 
the civill gouernment here established. And if you shall know 
any pson or psons wch intend, plott, or conspire any thing 
wch tends to the hurt or prejudice of the same, you shall 
timely discouer the same to lawfull authority here established 
and yow shall assist and bee helpfull in all the affaires of the 



394 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

The method of initiating religious and civil government in 
Milford, Guilford, and perhaps in Southold, appears similar 
to that adopted in New Haven. Pillars of the church were 
chosen for beginning the " foundation work ;" and after 
they had started the organization, others were admitted as 
church-members and as freemen of the respective towns. 1 
At Guilford, however, an additional restriction was placed 
upon freemen. The agreement of the settlers of that town 
included the following clause : 

" We do now therefore, all and every of us agree, order 
and conclude that only such planters, as are also members of 
the church here, shall bee, and bee called freemen, and that 
such freemen only shall have power to elect magistrates, Depu- 
ties and all other officers of public trust or authority in 
matters of importance, concerning either the civill officers or 
government here, from amongst themselves and not else- 
where." ' 

Thus not church-membership in some " approved" church of 
New England, but, rather, membership of the local church 
was required in the Guilford settlement. They went 
degree farther than New Haven. On the other hand, 
ford appears to have been more lax in the admission of free- 
men than were her neighbors. Before her union with New 
Haven and Guilford, Milford admitted six non-church-mem- 
bers as freemen. But the action was esteemed so objection- 
able that it was thought worthy of a special place in the 



Jurisdiction, and by all meanes shall promove the publique 
wellfare of the same, according to yo r place, ability, and opptu- 
nity, yow shall give due honno r to the lawful magistrats, and 
shall be obedient and subject to all the wholesome lawes and 
orderes, allready made, or w c h shall be hereafter made, by 
lawfull authority afforesaid. And that both in yo r pson and 
estate; and when yow shall be duely called to give yo r vote or 
suffrage in any election, or touching any other matter, w c h 
concerneth this common wealth, yow shall give it as in yo r 
conscience yow shall judg may conduce to the best good of the 
same." 

1 Atwater, New Haven, Chap. IX. 

2 Steiner, Guilford, 35 - 36. 



The Suffrage in Connecticut. 395 

agreements leading up to the union of 1643. Milford would 
not disfranchise her irregular freemen, but they were to be 
permitted to vote only for town officers and deputies, they 
and all non-church-members were excluded from holding 
office, and for the future " none shall be admitted freemen 
or free burgesses hereafter att Milforde, butt church mem- 
bers according to the practice of Newhaven." 1 

No change was made in the freeman principle nor in the 
qualifications of applicants by the fundamentals of 1643, 
which united the previously separate settlements of New 
Haven, Milford, and Guilford, except that non-freemen were 
specially guaranteed rights " to their inheritance & to 
comerce, according to such grants, orders and lawes as shall 
be made concerning the same/' 2 It was the aim of the 
New Haven government to keep the entire political control 
in the hands of the freemen. In Connecticut and Massa- 
chusetts non-freemen could vote in some local elections, but 
not in those for the entire colony. But no such distinction 
was made in New Haven; the freemen church-members 
alone could elect the colony officers, direct the affairs, and 
choose the officers of the towns, 3 and they only were privi- 
leged to select the militia officers, 4 a right almost universally 
granted to all soldiers. 5 The newly organized government 
also required all persons admitted as inhabitants to take an 
oath of fidelity to the jurisdiction. 6 

Such was the simple basis of political organization in the 
" republic of New Haven." All adult male inhabitants, who 
were members of some approved church in New England, 
were qualified electors of the commonwealth. But in the 

1 New Haven Col. Rec, 1638-1649, no; Atwater, New Haven, 158. 
It is interesting to note that of the fifty-four original planters of 
Milford, forty-four were at once admitted to church membership, a 
larger proportion of actual members than is seen among the early 
settlers of New Haven (Atwater, 157). 

'New Haven Col Rec., 1638-1649, 112. 

* Ibid., 1653-1665, 604. 

4 Ibid., 361, 602. 

5 See subject of militia elections in other colonies. 

'New Haven Col. Rec, 1638-1649, 130; 1653-1665, 57, 98; Lever- 
more, The Republic of New Haven. 101. 



396 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

simplicity of the restriction there lay a danger which the 
state soon discovered. The church was the door to political 
power; but who should guard the entrance? " Who was to 
keep the keepers ?" 1 Massachusetts had recognized the 
danger very soon after she laid the religious restriction upon 
freemen, and in 1635-6 had met the difficulty by forbidding 
the organization of any church without the consent of the 
magistrates of the colony and the elders of the approved 
churches. 2 The New Haven legal code of 1656 adopted the 
spirit of the earlier provision of Massachusetts, although 
changing somewhat the wording of the law. Full liberty 
was given to the " people of God within this jurisdiction, 
who are not in a church way, being orthodox in judgment, 
and not scandalous in life," 3 to gather themselves into a 
church organization according to the " rules of Christ, re- 
vealed in his Word." But no such company of persons join- 
ing in " any pretended way of church fellowship" should be 
recognized by the general court unless they had the approval 
of the magistrates and the elders of the churches. 

" Nor shall any person, being a member of any church which 
shall be gathered without such notice given and approbation 
had, or who is not a member of some church in New England 
approved by the magistrates and churches of this colony, be 
admitted to the freedom of this jurisdiction." 

In this way the state protected itself against the deterioration 
of the political constituency by the acceptance of the mem- 
bers of irregular churches. The religious qualification for 
the suffrage implied a right upon the part of the political 
authorities to preserve the purity of the ecclesiastical spring 
whence flowed the freeman class. As in the colonies where 
freeholding was a prerequisite to political rights the legis- 
latures were compelled to define the term freehold, so in 
Massachusetts and New Haven the term church-member 
must be given a definite connotation. 

Another feature of the fundamentals of the union of 1643 

1 Palfrey, New England, I, 436. 

3 Mass. Col. Rec., I, 171. 

*New Haven Col. Rec., 1653-1665, 588. 



The Suffrage in Connecticut. 397 

is the adoption of the proxy system. By the third funda- 
mental it was provided that 

"for the ease of those free burgesses especially in the more 
remote plantations, they may by proxi vote in these elections, 
though absent, their votes being sealed vp in the prsence of 
the free burgesses themselves, thatt their severall libertyes 
may be preserved, and their votes directed according to their 
owne particular light." 1 

The constitution of 1643 did not state the manner in which 
these proxy votes, or ballots, should be cast, but the code of 
1656 permitted those freemen who could not conveniently 
attend the election to " send their Votes, either written, or 
in some other way sealed up." 2 The " other way" is illus- 
trated by the corn-and-bean provision of the same code; 
according to which the freeman might " send his Vote, as 
he finds cause, either in the affirmative, by putting in an 
Indian Corne, or in the Negative, by putting in a Beane, or 
in such other manner, as the Generall Court shall judge 
more convenient." 

Despite, however, the early strictness with which the right 
of election was limited to the freemen, there arose in prac- 
tice certain exceptions to the principle, and popular clamor 
demanded still greater compromises. In the militia elections 
it was not always found possible to obtain efficient or willing 
officers among the freemen, and although the electors appear 
to have been freemen, yet on several occasions the officers 
chosen were non-freemen. 3 In the town-meetings, Guil- 
ford, as early as 1645-6 permitted all planters to vote upon 
a question of the division of the town lands. 4 It must be 
remembered that non-freemen often were landowners and 

1 New Haven Col. Rec., 1638-1649, 113. 

*Ibid., 1653-1665, 567. 

8 New Haven Col. Rec, 1653-1665, 97, 145, 407. In the last case the 
general court permitted Southold to choose a non-freeman drummer 
because of their " present necessity & his fitnes." 

4 Steiner, Guilford, 167. The attendance of non-freemen at the town- 
meetings in Guilford was compulsory; the fines upon "planters" being 
one-half those imposed upon freemen for lateness or absence {ibid., 
100). 



398 The Suffrage Franchise in tlie English Colonics. 

proprietors in common lands, upon which matters they would 
have an ethical right to be heard when their property in- 
terests were at stake. But the boundary line between purely 
personal matters and political concerns was not easily deter- 
mined, and some towns admitted non-freemen " to vote in 
things of weightie trust and concernment." The latter con- 
dition called forth an order from the general court requiring 
the fundamental orders to "be exactly attended and none 
suffered to vote but free-men." But the court itself 
compelled in justice to add, " unless it be in some pticuler 
cases wherein the proprieties of the planters in generall are 
concerned and ought not to be disposed of wmout their 
consent." 1 

As in local matters there was thus a slight lifting of the 
bars to the suffrage, so the restricted nature of the freeman- 
ship in general elections soon led to protests by the disfran- 
chised against its narrowness. While restrictions were im- 
posed upon the admission of inhabitants, 2 yet many who were 
not church-members acquired inhabitancy and lands in the 
towns. 3 It has not been possible to arrive at an estimate 
of the actual number or proportion of this disfranchised 
class, but it must have constituted a group of inhabitants 
almost, if not quite, as large as that of the freemen, 
late as 1669, when the more lenient Connecticut laws were in 
force, the freemen of the town of New Haven did not in- 
clude more than half the whole number of taxable males. 4 
At an earlier time the proportion of freemen may have been 
even less than this. 5 A disfranchised class of this size 
not likely to remain silent throughout the history of the 
colony. 

During the war between the English Commonwealth and 
the Dutch the members of the New England federation dis- 
cussed the expediency of an attack upon New Amsterdam. 
Through the opposition of Massachusetts the plan was not 

1 New Haven Col. Rec, 1653-1665, 177. 
'Ibid., 1638-1649, 24, 40, 130; 1653-1665, 610. 
• Levermore, Republic of New Haven, 101-104. 

4 See post; and compare Conn. Col. Rec, 1665-1677, 290, with ibid., 
5 18-526. 

6 See Doyle, The Puritan Colonics. I, 198-199- 



The Suffrage in Connecticut. 399 

carried out, but the agitation of the subject led to great 
popular movements in Connecticut and New Haven, in the 
course of which two towns, Fairfield in Connecticut and 
Stamford in New Haven, even began to collect a force to 
attack the Dutch on their own account. The refusal of the 
authorities of both Connecticut and New Haven to sanc- 
tion the proposed attack increased popular excitement in 
the towns, and led some of the inhabitants to attack the 
existing colonial governments ; they declared themselves in 
favor of the " State of England," and were determined " to 
stand for their liberties, that they may all have their 
votes." 1 

Robert Bassett, of Stamford, appears to have been the 
most active man in the New Haven jurisdiction in favoring 
the popular movement. He was arrested, charged with being 
a " ringleader in these wayes of disturbance," and brought 
before the court at New Haven. The court believed he had 
wanted to "overthrow churches and comonwealthes ;" and 
recorded how he had demanded, in a Stamford town-meet- 
ing, after being told that the meeting was held under Eng- 
lish authority, " then let vs haue Englands lawes, for Eng- 
land doe not prohibbitt vs from our votes and liberties, and 
here wee are, and wee are cut of from all appeales to Eng- 
land." 2 He had also pointed to the more favorable suffrage 
laws of Connecticut. The court of New Haven proceeded 
to enlighten him with respect to the suffrage in England; 
and " hee was informed that many thousands in England, 
of great estates, and good repute in other respects, haue no 
vote in such elections." His own course, he was told, had 
been " full of pride & insolency, himself e a leader to disturbe 
the peace both of churches and commonwealth, nay to ouer- 
throwe all foundations laid here for gouernment, w c h by 
oath he stands bound to maintayne and vphold, so he hath 
discovered a false and rotten spirit." 3 Another of the mal- 
contents was charged with teaching the same doctrines, " w c h 
in him is worss then in another because hee is a freeman and 

^twater, New Haven, 404-406; Trumbull, Conn. (ed. of 1898), 
I 175- 

'New Haven Col. Rec, 1655-1665, 52, 55, 59, 60. 

3 Ibid., 60. 



400 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

sometime hath bine a deputie in ye general court." 1 Still 
another was charged with " pleading for liberties in votes, 
that all may chuse officers for publique trust, and chuse whom 
they please; and because it is not granted, he growes surly 
and discontented." In the Stamford town-meeting he had 
said the town deputies were really church deputies ; " and 
who must chuse them?" he asked. "The free-men; then 
said hee, wee are bond-men, and so will our chilldren bee, 
therefore it is time for vs to looke to it." So widespread 
was the spirit of unrest in Stamford that the general court 
was informed that " the generality of Stamford did desire 
they might haue libertie in vots." 

Southold, on Long Island, was the scene of a similar 
popular movement. The leaders claimed the government 
was tyrannical ; but the worst remark recorded against any 
of them was the statement of John Youngs, that he 
" vnsatisfyed that he had not his vote in chusing millil 
officers." 2 The general court had no compromise to offer 
the discontented inhabitants. They were fined in various 
amounts, placed under heavy bonds, and required to make 
confession of their error. Steps were also taken to enforce 
more rigidly the policy of tendering the oath of fidelit 
all inhabitants, and report was to be made to the general 
court of those refusing to accept the oath. 3 A few m< >i 
later, in May, 1654, all persons before being admitted as 
inhabitants, were required to express approval of the funda- 
mentals restricting the suffrage to church-members, and then 
must take the oath of fidelity to the government established 
in the jurisdiction. This approval of the fundamental laws 
is so unusual a provision that it may be quoted entire : 

" It is ordered that vpon the admittance of any man as a 
planter into any plantation in this jurisdiction, the funda- 
mentall lawes and orders concerning votes, &c, shall be read 
to them, and if approved, the oath of fidellitie shall be admin- 

1 New Haven Col. Rec., 1653-1665, 61 

2 Ibid., 94. Where the right of election of military officers existed 
in the colonies, it was almost uniformly vested in all the soldiers; so 
Youngs' demand was a remarkably modest one. 

9 Ibid., 57, 96. 



The Suffrage in Connecticut. 401 

istered to them, the plantation wch is to receive them being 
satisfyed in other respects by a satisfying certifycate from 
sufficient credible psons, of their good behaviour & conver- 
sation." 1 

n this way the new inhabitant was required to express ap- 
)roval of the fundamentals and swear to observe the rules 
)y which he might be perpetually disfranchised. 

Yet in spite of the firmness with which this popular move- 
nent was suppressed, only two years had passed when the 
general court was compelled to enter upon its records the 
act " that in some of the plantations the fundamentall 
awes of the jurisdiction haue not bine attended, but that 
)thers besides free-men haue had libertie to vote in things of 
k veightie trust and concernment;" 2 and it was ordered that 
he fundamentals be " exactly attended, and none suffered 
vote but free-men," except in cases where the land in- 
erests of proprietors were at stake. 

Again, in 1661 the limited suffrage led to disorders in 
Guilford, where, however, there were other causes of dis- 
:ontent. 3 The appeal was made this time, not to the laws 
)f England, but to the very fundamentals themselves, 4 the 
irst of which, while limiting the suffrage to church-mem- 
)ers, had closed with the guarantee that non-freeman planters 
should have rights " to their inherritance & to comerce." 5 
Doubtless the non-freemen of Guilford, like disfranchised 
:lasses in almost all other communities, had discovered that 
:he civil and economic rights granted in the fundamentals 
:ould not be fully protected without the political rights 
tfhich the same fundamentals had denied. The general court 
ieclared 6 to all " godly and peaceable inhabitants" that they 
loped there would be no cause to complain of withholding 

l New Haven Col. Rec., 1653-1665, 98. The same express approval 
)i the fundamentals was required of Oyster Bay when it applied for 
Jnion with the colony {ibid.). 

2 New Haven Col. Rec, 1653-1665, 177. 

8 Steiner, Guilford, 100-103. 

'New Haven Col. Rec., 1653-1665, 403. 

'Ibid., 1638-1649, 112. 

'Ibid., 403-404. 

26 



402 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

just rights and liberties, but there must be no injury done to 
the " cheife ends and interests, professed and pretended 
all at our coming, combineing and setling in Ne\ 
land ;" and from which no " disturbers of their Israeli" could 
divert them to commit their " more weighty ciuill or mili- 
tary trusts into the hands of either a crafty Achitophell, or 
a bloody Joab." With a bearing more conciliatory I 
that of 1654, the court expressed the hope " that all plan; 
would make it their serious endeauour to come in by the 
doore to enjoy all privilidges & beare all burdens equall w th 
themselues, according to our foundation settlements & \ 
uersally professed ends, and yt there may be noe disorderly 
or vncomely attempts to climbe vp another way." 

But the malcontents were not to be left much longer in 
their disfranchised state. A little over a year after the 
trouble in Guilford the news was spread in the New 
towns of the terms of the new Connecticut charter, which 
seemed to include all the New Haven lands within the terri- 
tory granted to Connecticut. The possibility of en jo;. 
the wider political privileges of Connecticut was noticed 
once, and Southold, in which we have seen there v. 
satisfaction with the suffrage, voted to send depr 
Hartford, while individual planters in Guilford, Stain f 
and Greenwich were immediately admitted freemen of 
Connecticut. 1 Thus the towns in which the agitation 
the restricted suffrage had existed for eight years were 
ones to first leave New Haven; and it is quite conceivable 
that the terms later accorded to New Haven, althoi: 
favorable, might have been still more so if her populat 
had unitedly upheld the New Haven officers in their 0| 
tion to the claims of Connecticut. 

Although the extension of the Connecticut jurisdicti 
over New Haven territory by the charter of 1662 \ 
strongly opposed by the government of the latter col' 
evidence is not lacking that Winthrop, who secured 
charter in England, believed that the two colonies couM 
harmoniously united. 2 But if such were the case his ho 

1 Atwater, New Haven, 463-465 ; Conn. Col. Rcc, 1636-1665, 386-* 

2 See correspondence of Governors Winthrop and Leete, before t 
departure of the former for England (Atwater, New Haven, 45 



The Suffrage in Connecticut. 403 

were not immediately realized. A number of circumstances 
prevented the amicable union of the two colonies; among 
which may be mentioned the absence of Winthrop himself 
in England, the hasty action of Connecticut in accepting 
Southold and the inhabitants of the other towns, the natural 
reluctance of the New Haven authorities to yield their in- 
dependence, and, as strong as any of the other reasons, the 
desire to maintain the New Haven religious restriction upon 
the suffrage. With the latter reason we are particularly 
concerned. The objection does not at first appear upon the 
surface of the New Haven Records, but in March, 1662-3 
the Connecticut general court proposed to New Haven that 
there should be no interference with the church government 
of New Haven, that their magistrates might remain in office 
until the succeeding election, that representation in the 
Connecticut government be given to New Haven, and that 
all present freemen of New Haven be at once admitted into 
the Connecticut corporation. 1 No reference, however, was 
made to the future qualifications of freemen. New Haven 
rejected these overtures until more definite information 
could be obtained from England respecting the meaning of 
the charter. 

In August, 1663, New Haven, on her part, suggested the 
making of a treaty between the two colonies. 2 She pro- 
posed that the " fundamentall lawes for governing especially 
y* touching the qualificacons of freemen shalbe the same w tn 
Boston or our (i.e.) members of some one or oth r of o r 
churches ;" that no infringement be made upon the church 
ordinances or the freedom of choosing ministers; that the 
present New Haven freemen be at once admitted upon an 
equality with those of Connecticut ; that a new law book be 
drawn up; and that the freemen in each town should elect 
their town officers. Connecticut replied to the first question : 

" That the patterne or foundation from wch we cannot vary 
is o r charter, nor dare we admit of any fundamUs varying 
from ye teno r thereof, but w* lawes may be concurring there- 
with and conduceable to y e publique weale of church and 

1 New Haven Col. Rec, 1653-1665, A7S~A77- 
1 Ibid., 491. 



404 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

state we are ready to grant y« establishing thereof, & pticularly 
for quallification of freemen we are ready to grant that they 
shalbe men of a religious carriage visibly soe, hauing and 
possessing some competency of estate, and shal bring a certifi- 
cate afnrmatiue that they are thus quallified from y« deacons 
of y e church and two of y e select men of ye towne where they 
line, and if there be noe deacons, then some other knowne & 
approued persons wth y e selectment as before." 1 

Connecticut agreed to respect the church ordinances and 
privileges and to accept as freemen of their colony all the 
present freemen of New Haven. She refused, however, to 
follow the plan, so unpopular even in New Haven, of limit- 
ing the town suffrage to freemen. Instead, the Connecticut 
committee proposed that all necessary town officers should 
be " yearly chosen by a maior vote of the approued in- 
habitants." 

These propositions were the most liberal which Connecti- 
cut was willing at any time to offer, and, had they been ac- 
cepted by New Haven, a modification of the Connecticut 
freemanship law might have resulted in the adoption of a 
rule as restrictive as that of Massachusetts after her apparent 
yielding in 1664 to the royal commissioners. But New 
Haven would not negotiate until the towns and persons 
lately accepted into the Connecticut colony should be restored 
to their old relationship. Connecticut refused to do this, and 
soon there appeared the greater danger of a union with the 
Catholic Duke of York's territory to the westward. 2 At 
last, in November, 1664, came the decision of the ki: 
commissioners that New Haven was included within the 
charter limits of Connecticut, and there was no further op- 
portunity for New Haven to make terms with her more 
fortunate neighbor. The towns of the New Haven colony 
were incorporated into Connecticut ; those New Haven free- 
men who took the freeman's oath were to be admitted as 
freemen of the latter colony ; 3 but New Haven, as a distinct 
political entity, was not permitted to enter into an agree- 

1 New Haven Col. Rec., 1653-1665, 493. 

1 Atwater, New Haven, 510. 

3 Conn. Col. Rec., 1636-1665, 437. 



The Suffrage in Connecticut. 405 

merit with Connecticut. In the light of the decision of the 
royal commissioners, Connecticut had no need to make com- 
promises with the New Haven men. Her magnanimity in 
time of victory did not extend even to a modified recogni- 
tion of the theocracy of New Haven; and the religious 
qualifications of New Haven, which a year earlier might 
have influenced the legislation of the united colony, now 
gave way before the more general economic and political 
qualifications of Connecticut. 1 

III. Under the Charter of 1662. 

The Connecticut charter of 1662, secured through the 
exertions of Governor Winthrop, erected a civil corporation 
composed of nineteen named persons and " such others as 
now are or hereafter shall bee Admitted and made free of 
the Company and Society of our Collony of Conecticut." 2 
Its affairs were to be directed by a governor, a deputy-gov- 
ernor, twelve assistants, and two meetings of an assembly in 
each year. The general assemblies were made up of the 
" freemen of the said Company, or such of them (not ex- 
ceeding twoe Persons from each place, Towne or Citty) 
whoe shall be from tyme to tyme therevnto Elected or 
Deputed by the maior parte of the freemen of the respective 
Townes, Citty es and Places. " The governor, deputy-gov- 
ernor, and the assistants should be chosen annually on the 
second Thursday in May " by such greater part of the said 
Company for the tyme being then and there present." The 
future admission of freemen was vested in the general 
assemblies, to which full power was given " to Choose, 
Nominate and appoint such and soe many other Persons as 
they shall thinke fitt and shall bee willing to accept the same, 
to bee free of the said Company and Body Politique, and 
them into the same to Admitt and to Elect." Such other 
officers as the assembly " shall thinke fitt and requisite for 
the Ordering, mannageing and disposeing of the Affaires" of 

*It is interesting to notice that the last meeting of the New Haven 
jurisdiction was made up not of freemen alone, but also of as many 
of the "inhabitants as pleased to come" (Atwater, 518). 

2 Conn. Col. Rec, 1665-1677, 4. 



406 Tlic Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

the company should be constituted by the general assembly. 
The territory included in the charter was not clearly defined, 
but as later interpreted by the king's commissioners it com- 
prised not only the Connecticut jurisdiction, but the New 
Haven colony as well, with the exception of the Long Island 
dependencies of the two colonies, all of which were given by 
the king to the Duke of York. 

It will be seen that the charter had the freemanship prin- 
ciple so strangely common to the English trading companies, 
to many of the English boroughs, and to the great political 
organizations of New England; a principle, too, which the 
colonists of Connecticut and New Haven had established 
for themselves in their autochthonous communities. Little 
change was made by the charter in the political organization 
of the Connecticut colony, but it did indirectly break down 
the religious qualifications of New Haven by bringing that 
colony under the rule of Connecticut. The two most 
noticeable changes in the Connecticut customs were the 
entire elimination of inhabitants from colonial elections and 
the apparent incompatibility of proxy voting with the terms 
of the charter. 

Attention has been called to the two distinct classes of 
voter? in early Connecticut; freemen only being permitted 
by the fundamentals of 1639 to vote for general officers, 
while properly admitted inhabitants of the towns, as well as 
freemen, could take part in the elections of deputies to the 
general courts. The old method in a sense made the deputies 
the direct officers of the towns; but the new charter, by 
limiting the suffrage for deputies as well as colonial officers 
to freemen, gave the representatives a colonial character. 
The deputies were no longer the representatives of the sev- 
eral towns, but of the freemen of the colony resident within 
the towns. Naturally, the elimination of inhabitants from 
such elections did not come without some opposition by the 
disfranchised and formal interpretation by the assembly. 
The general court, " understanding that trouble is like to 
ensue upon the apprehension of seuerall inhabitants amongst 
us respectinge the priuiledge of Freemen, and who are to 
make choyce of Deputyes and publiq' officers," felt com- 
pelled to order and declare that only those who were orderly 



The Suffrage in Connecticut. 407 

admitted by the general assembly into the freemanship 
should have a share in such elections. 1 The democratic 
ballot, or " proxy" voting as it was called at the time, was 
also apparently forbidden by the charter. This had been 
permitted in both Connecticut and New Haven. It was 
now temporarily suspended, and an interpretation put upon 
the charter which is thus described : " The charter, then, 
required annual elections of Colony officers by popular vote, 
at a mass meeting of all the freemen in one place, and par- 
ticularly specified as the electoral body the majority of the 
freemen present at the time of voting." 2 

In discussing the suffrage under the charter of 1662 we 
shall notice the facts both of colonial and of local elections. 
Under the former subject mention must be made (a) of 
the qualifications successively imposed upon voters down to 
the revolutionary period; (b) the re-adoption of the proxy 
system; (c) a few figures concerning the number of voters. 
Under the heading of local elections, the franchise for town, 
for church, and for militia elections must be summarized, 
and mention made of the voting in respect to proprietary 
claims to lands. 

The charter of 1662 changed the basis for the suffrage in 
New Haven from a religious one to the good character and 
property qualifications of Connecticut, but it may be doubted 
whether this change would have resulted in an extension of 
the franchise if the Connecticut restriction of 1658-9 had 
been retained after the union. On the other hand, the 
charter, as has been noted, worked a limitation in Connecti- 
cut by barring non-freeman town inhabitants from the elec- 
tions for deputies. Had the Connecticut freeman act of 
1658-9 been retained after the enforcement of the charter a 
restriction of the suffrage in both colonies would have 
resulted. But the Connecticut politicians were too liberal — 
or too shrewd in the light of their impending struggle for the 
control of New Haven — to retain so high a property quali- 
fication. The meeting of the first general court after the 
proclamation of the charter, in October, 1662, — the meeting 
in which Southold and the inhabitants of other New Haven 

1 Conn. Col. Rec, 1636-1665, 417; March 10, 1663-4. 
*New Haven Hist. Soc. Papers, V, 192. 



408 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

towns were accepted into their government, — changed < 
siderably the basis for the franchise. For the fur 
applicants for the freemanship must be twenty-one years of 
age; they must present " themselves with a certificate voder 
ye hands of y e maior part of the Townesmen where i 
liue, that they are p r sons of civill, peaceable, and honest i 
versation;" and they must be assessed for twenty pounds 
estate, besides their poll-tax, in the list of estate. Such per- 
sons were to be presented at the October general court 
some adjourned court yearly, and might be admitted by the 
assembly in the following May after the election. Persons 
walking scandalously or being legally convicted of 
scandalous offence were to be disfranchised by the com 

This act lowered the property qualification from the pos- 
session of twenty pounds personal property to the same 
amount of any form of taxable property ; it required a defi- 
nite certificate of the good character of the applicant, and it 
placed him upon a six months' probation. 2 In two and a 
half years before 1662 only three freemen had been admitted 
in Connecticut ; but under the new law large numbers were 
admitted at once, 3 and many others propounded and ad- 
mitted after the six months' probation, 4 while some were 
even admitted without their application and upon the con- 
dition that they accept the freemanship. 5 For eleven yi 
after the passage of the law of 1662 it remained unchanged, 
and seems to have been administered with care. The records 
frequently show that the terms of the act were not mere 
formalities. In October, 1664, we read of seven per 
accepted to be made free in the following May, " if nothing 

1 Conn. Col. Rcc, 1636-1665, 389. 

2 The probation feature may have been taken from the similar feature 
in use in some of the New England churches (Atwater, New Haven. 
254) ; or, more probably, it was copied from the Plymouth order of 
1658, requiring freemen to stand propounded for one year. 

3 Conn. Col. Rec, 1636-1665, 386-389, 391, 406, 412. 425, 427 - 43<> 
Many of the new freemen undoubtedly came from the New Haven 
towns, but a number were inhabitants of the original Connecticut 
jurisdiction. 

*Ibid., 413,433- 
c Ibid., 429-430. 



The Suffrage in Connecticut. 409 

fall in as a just exception against either of them in the 
interrem;" 1 and at other times the applicants for freeman- 
ship are said " to stand for their freedom," 2 or to be upon 
" tryall for freemen." 3 In at least two cases the general 
court saw cause to defer giving the freeman's oath to certain 
probationers " until some farther opertunity." 4 

The few years following the grant of the new charter 
were a time of considerable interest in the suffrage question. 
The negotiations with New Haven were under way, bring- 
ing to the front the advisability of moral and religious quali- 
fications; the new law of 1662 was being put in execution, 
while, on the other hand, the town inhabitants were trying to 
retain their right to vote for town deputies. In the midst of 
these domestic difficulties came the royal commissioners to 
investigate the political and religious conditions of the New 
England colonies. Colonel Nicholls and the other com- 
missioners were directed to make known to Connecticut 
those terms of their instructions concerning Massachusetts 
which properly applied to Connecticut, 5 and the Connecticut 
authorities were compelled to respond to a list of require- 
ments. 6 They replied to the demand for all householders to 
take an oath of allegiance to the king that persons had been 
appointed to administer such oaths and that it had been 
taken by " seuerall persons allready." To the demand " that 
all men of competent estates and of ciuill conuersation, 
though of different judgements, may be admitted to be free- 
men, and haue liberty to chuse or be chosen officers, both 
military and ciuill," the Connecticut general court replied, 
" our order for admission of freemen is consonant w th that 
proposition." The requirement for liberty of conscience 
called forth the answer, " We know not of any one that hath 
bin troubled by us for attending his conscience, prouided he 
hath not distu r bed the publique;" and the commissioners 

1 Conn. Col. Rec, 1636-1665, 433. 

2 Ibid., 413. 

8 Ibid., 1665-1677, 66. 

*Ibid., 14, 118. In the latter case all were admitted "only except 
Annanias Turrener." 
5 New York Col. Doc, III, 55"56. 
'Conn. Col. Rec, 1636-1665, 439. 




4io The Suffrage Franchise in tlte English Colonies. 



were also told that the court knew of no laws or expressions 
in laws derogatory to' the king, but if any such be found 
they should consider it their duty to repeal them. How 
well these replies and those of Rhode Island contrasted with 
the attitude of Massachusetts has been told in the com- 
missioners' own words. 1 

Interest in the franchise, however, did not cease with these 
replies. Three weeks later, in May, 1665, the general court 
re-enacted an earlier law by refusing to admit any freemen in 
the future unless they took the freeman's oath, 2 and at the 
same meeting the court adopted measures for the incorpora- 
tion of New Haven freemen into the Connecticut company, 
w r ith an implied extension of the suffrage in New Haven.* 
A year later the assembly was compelled to adopt the first 
law against " disorderly and corrupt practices in the election 
of the members of the Gen 1 ! Assembly." 4 If the terms of 
such laws give any clue to the condition of elections, — and 
usually they are not passed until occasion demands it, — 
unqualified persons must have been voting, and some free- 
men had cast more than one vote. Both of these practices 
in the future were to be punishable with a fine of five pounds 
for each transgression. In 1669 an interesting entry in the 
records shows how several persons, who were unjustly " re- 
pulsed in the endeauoring to procure their freedome," 
brought in the assessment lists to show that they had suffi- 
cient property to qualify them for the freemanship. 5 In 

1 Rhode Island Col. Rec, II, 127. 

2 Conn. Col. Rec, 1665-1677, 15. 

3 Ibid., 18. The Connecticut freeman's oath was to be administered 
to so many of the New Haven freemen as would accept it, and to 
such other persons who, by sufficient evidence, were shown to be 
qualified according to the Connecticut law. 

4 Conn. Col. Rec, 1665-1677, 37. 

5 Ibid., 107. " In the list of Estates as foloweth. — John Tompson 
Junr, 47f. 15s. John Beardsley, 87L 12s. 6d. John Wells, 71I. 5s. od. 
W m Robberts, 76L Sam" Fayrchild, 44! Sam" Mills, 39*. 10s. The- 
ophilus Shearman, 44£ 10s. This Court orders that those aboue written 
or so many of them as haue unjustly been repulsed in the endeauoring to 
procure their freedome, they makeing it appeare that they haue been 
unjustly debarred of that priuiledg, and that they are qualified according 



The Suffrage In Connecticut. 411 

the same year the selectmen and constables of each plantation 
were required to make a list of the freemen in their several 
plantations and send it " fayrely written" to the general 
court, where the names were to be recorded by the secretary, 
" that soe when there may be any occasion or difficulty about 
that matter, whoe are freemen, it may be the easier deter- 
mined." * In 1670 the democratic method of proxy voting 
was restored. 

All these features show how large a place in the history 
of the colony was occupied by the subjects of elections and 
suffrage. In the eight years from 1662 to 1670 the pos- 
session of the freemanship was required for all electors in 
colonial elections; an oath was imposed upon all freemen; 
a new and more liberal property qualification w r as estab- 
lished, which resulted in large additions to the class of free- 
men; the religious qualifications w<ere overthrown in New 
Haven and their place taken by the more worldly require- 
ments of Connecticut; satisfactory answers were given to 
the inquiries of the English commissioners; and the first 
steps were taken tow r ards perfecting the machinery of elec- 
tions by laws against fraudulent voting, by the drawing up 
of lists of freemen, and by the introduction of the proxy 
system. The electoral system was, in these years, outlined 
in a form which was little changed during the colonial 
period. 

Within the next five years two changes were introduced 
into the property qualifications, — one in 1673 raising the 
qualification and the other in 1675 reducing it somewhat. 
The printed code of 1673 changed the property requirement 
from the possession of twenty pounds of taxable property 
to twenty pounds value " in Housing or Land, beside their 
personal Estate in the common List." 2 But this amount 
seems to have been too high, for only two years later the 



to lawe, to the sattisfaction of Mr. Gold & the Com** of Fayrefeild and 
Stratford, they shall stand as nominated for their freedom at this 
court." 

x Conn. Col. Rec, 1665-1677, 112. 

2 The Book of the General Laws For the People within the Jurisdic- 
tion of Connecticut, Cambridge, 1673, 26. 



412 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

amount was diminished by one-half, and for the next four- 
teen years the property qualification stood at ten pounds 
value of taxable real estate. 1 It is interesting to glance, in 
this connection, at the actual assessments made upon land. 
In 1676 the best " home-lots" were rated at forty shill: 
an acre, and the worst at twenty shillings; the most valu- 
able farm lands were listed at fifty shillings an acre, bin 
far the greater part were valued at from ten to twenty shil- 
lings an acre. 2 At these valuations, a freeman, under the 
law of 1675, must be possessed of from five to ten acres of 
town lots, or from five to twenty acres of farm lands. It 
is thus fairly easy, in this case, to transform the value in 
pounds into actual extent of freehold required for the \ < 

Connecticut, with the rest of New England, passed under 
the government of Andros, and during the period of 
administration popular elections were discontinued except 
for town officers, who, according to the laws of Andros, were 
to be annually elected by the inhabitants of the several 
towns. 3 The Revolution of 1688 led Connecticut 
political irregularities somewhat similar to those arising 
many of the other colonies, and the same means were taken 
for the restoration of the charter government as were 
adopted in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. 4 In May, 
1689, the freemen met at Hartford and there three propo- 
sitions were made; one suggesting the reinstatement of 
the officers who were dispossessed by Andros, a second 
advising the retention of the officers appointed under 
Andros, and a third recommending the appointment of 
a committee of safety. 5 By a somewhat irregular \ 
the first measure, that of restoring the old officers \ 
had not been permitted to serve out their terms, was 
adopted, and the officers installed as in Massachusetts. All 
through this proceeding there was fear of often' 
England, and, in order that the terms of the charter 

1 Conn. Col. Rec, 1665-1677, 253. 

2 Ibid., 294 ff. 

3 Conn. Col. Rec, 1678- 1689, 427. 

4 R. I. Col. Rec, III, 257-258. 

"Bulkeley's Will and Doom, in Conn. Hist. Soc Coll., Ill, 153-1 60 ; 
Conn. Col. Rec, 1678-1689, 455-460. 



The Suffrage in Connecticut. 413 

might be the more fully observed, even proxy voting was 
forbidden. 1 

It may have been the desire to propitiate the English 
authorities, or, as Bulkeley states, perhaps only an effort to 
gain political advantage 2 that led the assembly in the fall of 
1689 to adopt the exact provision of the English statute of 
1430, and require for the future that all candidates for the 
freemanship should be "in possession of freehold estate to 
the value of forty shillings in country pay per annum." 3 
The exact effect of this change from a taxable valuation to 
an income qualification is difficult to determine, but it was 
evidently in the direction of a more extended suffrage. 
Bulkeley believed the change was adopted by certain of the 
leaders in order that " their admission of freemen [be] 
enlarged, so to oblige more of the people to them and make 
them a greater party." 4 This may have been one reason for 
the change, but another must have been that desire to 
placate the English authorities by removing some of the 
freemanship restrictions, which is seen also in the proposi- 
tions for a wider suffrage in Massachusetts at this time. 5 
The act of 1689 a ^ so abolished the six months of probation 
which had been previously required, and provided for the 
admission of freemen by any assistant or commissioner, 6 to 
whom the certificate of age, good character, and property- 
holding was to be presented, and before whom the free- 
man's oath was to be taken. Thus the assembly delegated to 
colonial officers the power of admission of freemen, which 
it had up to this time, in accordance with the charter, kept 
in its own control. 

With the dissipation of the fear of English intervention 
the colony reverted to its old method of a fixed valuation of 
property as prerequisite for the freemen. The code of 1702 
established the suffrage qualifications in a form which com- 
bined the mediaeval English requirement with a more liberal 
and practical American test. The forty-shilling freehold 

'Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll., Ill, 160. 

1 Ibid., 159. 

"Conn. Col Rec, 1689-1706, 11. * Op. cit 

8 See ante, 335~336. 

•Justice of the peace, by the act of 1702 and later years. 



414 The Suffrage Franc/use in the English Colonics. 

provision was, indeed, retained, and was to be kept during 
the entire colonial period, but an alternative was now m 
to it by which the applicant for the freemanship might o 
that class either by virtue of his freehold or by the holding 
of forty pounds personal estate. 1 In this dual form of per- 
sonal property or real estate the suffrage restrictions < 
tinued without change during the remainder of the colonial 
period. 

The new personal property qualification evidently led to 
election evils and carelessness in the admission of freemen. 
In 1705 the assembly was compelled to refuse the freeman- 
ship to several persons to whom the freeman's oath had been 
irregularly given; 2 and again in 1708 irregularly admitted 
freemen were referred to the county court of New London. 8 
In 1709 the assembly ordered that the value of the personal 
estate as well as of freehold should be taken from the I 
lists of the year in which the applicant desired to be enrolled 
a freeman. 4 It is also remarkable, in the light of Rh 
Island's efforts to adapt the property qualification to the 
changing value of the colonial paper money, that no such 
attempt was made in Connecticut. In 1710 the Connecticut 
paper money was circulating at par; by 1724 it was worth 
little more than one-half its face value in specie; by 1739 
it had declined to one-third specie value, and in 1744 to one- 
fourth. 5 In spite of this depreciation in the value of money. 
and consequent lowering of the standard of admission to the 
freemanship, Connecticut made no changes in her qualifica- 
tions. Indeed, the forty-shilling freehold, translated later 
into seven dollars income from land, was retained as one of 
the alternative qualifications of the suffrage until the amend- 
ment in 1845 OI tne constitution of i8i8. fi 

1 Acts and Laws of His Majesties Colony of Connecticut in New- 
England. Printed in 1702 and now first reissued; Acorn Club, lQOi, 
p. 40. 

'Conn. Col. Rec, 1689-1706, 511. 

3 Ibid., 1706-1716, 79. 4 Ibid., I 

6 H. Bronson, A Historical Account of Connecticut Currency 
tinental Money, and the Finances of the Revolution. New Haven Hist. 
Soc. Papers, I, 50-52. 

8 New Haven Hist. Soc. Papers. V, 233. 



The Suffrage in Connecticut. 415 

Before 1662 admissions of freemen were sometimes made 
by the general court, and sometimes by specially appointed 
officers. Under the charter, with the exception of a few 
instances in connection with the admission of New Haven 
freemen, the assembly invariably acted upon the admission 
of each freeman until the year 1689. The election act of 
that year delegated to the assistants and local commissioners 
the duty of examining the certificates of age, good character, 
and property of applicants for the freemanship, and em- 
powered these ofiicers to administer the freeman's oath to 
those properly qualified. In 1729 this duty was made over 
to the " open Freemens-Meeting of the Town" 1 to which the 
applicant belonged ; publicly before this meeting the oath of 
a freeman was to be administered, and the new freeman's 
name enrolled by the town clerk. No subsequent change was 
made in the colonial period. 

Summarizing the restrictions upon the suffrage, we may 
say that there was no formal property qualification upon 
freemen either in New Haven, down to the union with 
Connecticut, nor in Connecticut until 1658-9. Up to this 
time the religious qualifications of New Haven may have 
been paralleled in practice in Connecticut; but after the 
passage of this law for almost two hundred years, or down 
to 1845, a property qualification was one of the alternative 
requirements of freemen. The amount was twenty pounds 
personal property in 1658-9; in 1662 it was changed to the 
same amount of taxable property; in 1673 it became that 
amount of housing or lands, and in 1675 it was changed 
again to ten pounds of real estate. From 1689 to 1702 the 
sole property qualification was forty shillings freehold ; but 
in the latter year the alternative of forty pounds personal 
estate was established and retained until after the Revolu- 
tion. From 1662 to 1689 a six months' probation was 
required; while from the earliest period to the latter date 
freemen were admitted by the general court. In 1689 ad- 
missions were made by certain ofiicers, and in 1729 by the 
town clerks in open town-meetings of the freemen. The 
age of twenty-one years was first expressed in 1658-9, 

1 Session Laws, 1729, 370; Ch. XLVII. 



4i 6 The Suffrage Frcmchise in the English Colonies. 

although it is highly probable that it was in force from the 
beginning of the colony; the good-character clause appears 
first in 1657; both of these provisions were continued 
throughout the period. From 1640 down to the Revolution 
of 1776 every person admitted as a freeman was compelled 
to take some form of an oath. 

Turning from the suffrage qualifications to the manner 
in which this franchise was exercised, mention must be made 
of the proxy system of Connecticut. Only a few words, 
however, can be said here concerning this interesting system 
of balloting, but the reader is referred to the papers of Judge 
Baldwin for a full exposition of the subject. 1 

The fundamental orders of 1639 provided for the election 
of colony officers by means of paper ballots ; 2 and New 
Haven's constitution of 1643 permitted freemen to cast their 
votes by proxy if they did not find it convenient to attend 
the election in person. 3 The latter feature appears to have 
developed in Connecticut also; and, although there is no 
statutory provision for it, we read that in 1660 certain towns 
used " to send Proxies, at y e Election, by their Deputies." ' 
This method of sending ballots up to the election, instead 
of personally attending, was temporarily suspended by the 
earlier interpretation of the charter of 1662; but in 1670 
the system was restored, and this time elaborately outlined. 5 

" This Court being sencible of the great charge, difficulty and 
expense of time the freemen of this colony are at by reason of 
their great numbers and remoatness from Hartford, the place 
of election, and considering the many inconveniences that 
otherwayes may arise upon the yearly day of election, and 
that the work of that day may be the more orderly, easily 
and speedily issued, — It is ordered by this Court and the 
Authority thereof, that henceforth all the freemen of this 
Jurisdiction, w th out any further summons, from yeare to 
yeare, shall or may upon the second Thursday in May yearly, 

1 New Haven Hist. Soc. Papers, V, 179-245; Amer. Hist. Association 
Papers, IV, 407-422. 

2 Conn. Col. Rec, 1636-1665, 22. 

8 New Haven Col. Rec, 1638-1649, 113. 
4 Conn. Col. Rec, 163&-1665, 346. 
8 Ibid., 1665-1677, 131-2. 



The Suffrage in Connecticut. 417 

either in person or in proxie, at Hartford attend and consum- 
ate the election of Gouernour, Deputy Gouernour and Assists, 
and such other publique officers as his Matie hath appoynted 
by o r Charter then to be yearly chosen." 

The act directed the manner in which the election by proxies 
should be managed, so " that there be no fraud or deceipt 
used therein;" the constable was required to read to the 
assembled freemen the freeman's oath and the law punishing 
disorderly voting, and then to announce the names of those 
persons who had previously been put in nomination for 
office. From this list the freemen were to vote by ballot for 
the several officers, and their ballots were to be sealed up 
and sent up to the annual election at Hartford. 

The records of the elections do not show the use of ballots 
by non-attending freemen. One would not know, from a 
perusal of these records, that many of the freemen never 
attended the elections. We read such vague statements as, 
" This day, being the day appointed by charter, and the laws 
of this Colony, for the Election of the publick officers of 
this corporation . . . the freemen of this corporation pro- 
ceeded to give in their votes to persons chosen and appointed 
... to receive and sort them . . . And the votes of the 
freemen having now been brought in, sorted, and counted," 
certain persons were declared elected. 1 Better phraseology 
to hide the existence of the proxy system and the absence of 
a majority of the voters from the annual election could 
hardly be conceived. The option between going personally 
to the election or sending his vote was retained by the 
freeman until 1750, when personal attendance was abolished 
and the elections were conducted entirely by the counting of 
ballots previously cast in the freemen's meetings of the 
respective towns and carried up to Hartford by the deputies. 2 

Closely associated with the suffrage and the proxy system 
was the Connecticut method of nominating candidates for 
colonial officers by popular vote of the freemen in the towns. 
The custom, without doubt, was drawn from the similar 

1 Conn. Col. Rec, 1706-1716, 309, and other volumes passim. 
'Acts and Laws Of His Majesty's English Colony of Connecticut, 
New London, 1750, p. 46. 

27 



418 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

feature of the Massachusetts code. In 1670 the nomination 
was made by the assembly; 1 in 1689 the power was given 
to the freemen in the towns to hand in the names of twenty 
persons fairly written on paper as nominees for the colonial 
offices ; 2 and the twenty having the greatest number 
votes for nomination were to be the number from which the 
freemen at the ensuing election should choose their officers. 
In 1692 the right of nomination was restored to the assem- 
bly; 3 but in 1697 4 the freemen regained the privilege and 
retained it throughout the period. 5 

One more feature respecting the colonial suffrage needs 
to be noted. The few facts which have been gathered 
concerning the number of voters can be stated briefly. The 
number of original freemen in the Connecticut valley is not 
accurately known; but the actual admission of freemen 
from 1639 to 1662 was only 229, and during this time it 
has been estimated that the population increased by about 
three thousand. 6 In other words, only one person in thir- 
teen of the new population was admitted to the freeman- 
ship. On the other hand, some idea of the proportion 
church-members, or freemen, to the entire population in N 
Haven may be gathered from the fact that only 99 men are 
mentioned as receiving seats in the church in 1646-7, 7 at a 
time when there may have been three hundred houses in the 
town. 8 If these 99 men were all heads of families 9 and 
householders, there would still remain the holders of twice 
that number of houses to be accounted for ; so that it seems 
probable that only one-third of the householders were mem- 
bers of the church. 

We know the exact number of freemen a few years after 

1 Conn. Col. Rec., 1665-1677, 133, 141. 
1 Ibid., 1 689- 1 706, 11. 
'Ibid., 81. 
4 Ibid., 223-4. 

B For further details of the nomination system see Baldwin. Amer 
Hist. Assn. Papers, IV, 407 fT. 
* New Haven Hist. Soc. Papers, III, 313. 

7 Atwater, New Haven, 542. 

8 Doyle, Puritan Colonies, I, 198. 
"Atwater, op. cit., 251. 



The Suffrage in Connecticut. 419 

the securing of the charter, for in 1669 the general court 
ordered a list of all the freemen to be made. 1 These lists 
have been preserved, and they show a total of yyy freemen. 2 
Comparing this with the figure 2050, — the whole number 
of men in the colony as given in the answers to the Com- 
mittee of Trade and Plantations, in 1671, 3 it would appear 
that three out of every eight men in the population were 
freemen. In 1692 we have such general statements as " The 
greatest part of y e people are no freeman of theire Com- 
pany;" 4 and "the other people of Connecticut (who yet 
were many times the greater number of the people) had 
nothing to do with it" [the election]. 5 The same writer, 
the malcontent Bulkeley, says again, " The greatest part of 
the people of this colony (I believe five or six to one) never 
were made free of the company." 6 In the following year 
the legislature called for opinions from the freemen and 
inhabitants upon the propriety of addressing the English 
monarchs for the preservation of the charter privileges, and 
received an affirmative vote from 2182 persons; a far 
greater number than all the freemen in the colony. 7 Indeed, 
as late as 1723 the total poll in the annual election for 
magistrates was only 1618 freemen. 8 

The figures for two elections near to the Revolutionary 
period are extant, and they show an actual poll of one vote 
to fifty or sixty persons in the population. A contested elec- 
tion for treasurer in 1768 called forth only 3385 votes ; & 
which, counting the population of the time at 155,000/° 

''Conn. Col. Rec, 1665-1677, 112. 
*lbid., 518-526. 

'Ibid., 1678-1689, 298. 

l N. Y. Col. Doc, 111,853. 

' Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll., Ill, 146. 

'Ibid., 129. 

"Ibid., 75; Conn. Col. Rec, 1689-1706, 102. 

' Amer. Hist. Assn. Papers, IV, 418. 

9 Conn. Col. Rec, 1768-177 2, 4. 

10 Ibid., 17 57-1762, 630. In 1762 the population was 146,590. an in- 
crease of 10,788 in the preceding six years. The same rate of increase 
would make 155,000 a conservative estimate for 1768 (see Col. Rec, 
1772-1775, 492). 



420 The Stiff rage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

would make the voting class only one-fiftieth of the entire 
population. In 1775, at a poll of votes in October for n« 
nees for the election in the following May, only 3477 voters 
took part. 1 In 1774 the total population of the colony 
197,856; of whom 40,797 were males over twenty years 
of age. 2 There was thus one voter in twelve of the male 
population over twenty years of age, and only one in fifty- 
seven of the entire population. The election for nominees 
may not have aroused the greatest interest ; but yet the I 
elections of 1768 and 1775 show a similar proportion 
voters to the population; and it is quite probable that the 
elections in the years preceding the Revolution did not call 
out more than two per cent, of the population. 

In the local suffrage in Connecticut the class of voters 
differed more or less from the freemen of the colonial elec- 
tions. There were four forms of local suffrage : town 
elections, church elections, militia elections, and proprietary 
meetings. 

Attention has already been called to the difference in the 
town suffrage in Connecticut and in New Haven before the 
union of the two colonies. We have noted how Connecticut 
permitted non-freemen who were regularly admitted in- 
habitants of a town, to vote for deputies to the general 
court ; and how the terms of admission were for a time left 
to the towns, but that in 1657 the assembly prescribed a 
general qualification for the class of admitted inhabitants. 
For military elections, the suffrage in Connecticut was still 
wider, the right being given to the soldiers alone to nomi- 
nate their officers, and to the courts to accept and install 
them. 3 On the other hand, in New Haven an attempt was 
made to limit every election, except those concerning pro- 

1 See entire votes for 45 candidates in Conn. Col. Rec, 1775*1776 
173-174. Each voter under the law of 1697 voted for twenty candidates 
and the number of votes in the text above is perhaps not accurate, as i 
has been gained by dividing the total ballots cast for all candidate 
the number of candidates ; some voters may not have voted for twentj 
persons. 

1 Conn. Col. Rec, 1772-1775, 491. 

3 Code of 1650, Conn. Col. Rec, 1636-1665, 543. 



The Suffrage in Connecticut. 421 

prietary rights in land, to the body of freemen. Elections 
for colony officials, for town officers, and for military and 
ecclesiastical leaders were all to be concentrated in the con- 
trol of the adult male church-members. In the negotiations 
for union, too, New Haven desired to retain this limitation 
of entire political power to the freemen, but the Connecticut 
authorities refused to yield the elective rights already 
granted to inhabitants of their towns. 1 

After the union under the charter of 1662, the basis for 
voting in the towns was fixed by the terms of the order of 
May 17, 1660, which provided that no one should be received 
as an inhabitant in any town unless he were known to be of 
an honest conversation and admitted by the vote of the 
majority of the town inhabitants. 2 The power thus vested 
in the towns of receiving or rejecting applicants for in- 
habitancy was retained by them throughout the colonial 
period, and the same authority is conferred upon the towns 
by the first legal code of the state in 1784. 3 Such formal 
admission to inhabitancy was, however, only required of 
those who came from other towns ; the sons of inhabitants, 
after attaining their majority, appear to have been classed 
as inhabitants without any formal vote of the town. 4 In 
this respect the position of an inhabitant in a Connecticut 
town was similar to that of a freeman in some English 
boroughs or in the Rhode Island towns. Apparently, the 
word inhabitant in Connecticut in the eighteenth century, 
did not have its English legal meaning of a householder or 
a landholder, but rather was applied to those who were 
formally admitted into the town, or the descendants of such 
persons. 

This view seems to be borne out by the fact that the voters 
of the towns are not co-extensive with the class of in- 

1 New Haven Col Rec, 1653-1665, 494. 

2 Conn. Col. Rec, 1636-1665, 651. 

3 Code of 1784, 102. After 1750 the right to admit inhabitants might 
be exercised by the town as a whole or by the selectmen, presumably 
as the town should determine (code of 1750, 99). 

4 See the record of a contested election in Lyme in January, I7I4~I5> 
and the decision of the Governor and Council respecting electors 
therein (Col. Rec., 170&-1716, 486). 



422 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

habitants. The early laws concerning town elections 
the right of suffrage in the " settled and approved Inh 
t.ants" of the towns; 1 but these adjectives, implying aa < 
ance by the town and land- or house-holding, were evidently 
too loose a description of the class desired as voters, 
early as 1679 we learn mat " there are in most of the plan- 
tations a number of sojourners or inmates that doe take it 
vpon them to deale, vote, or intermedle with the publique 
occasions of the towne and places where they doe live, to the 
dissatisfaction of their neighbours." 2 To prevent such prac- 
tices the assembly made the following restriction upon the 
local suffrage : 

" This Court doe order that no person that is not an ad- 
mitted inhabitant, a householder, and a man of a sober con- 
versation, and have at least fifty shillings freehold in the com- 
mon list besides his person, shall adventure to vote in the 
choyce of towne or county officers or grant of rates or lands, 
vpon the penalty of the forfeiture of twenty shillings for the 
breach of this order; provided that no freeman of the corpora- 
tion be hereby barred from voteing." 3 

It will be noticed that this act placed many restrictions upon 
the town voter; he must be regularly admitted by the town 
into its political and economic life; his character must be 
good ; he must be a householder in the town and also own a 
specified amount of land in freehold. 

Only three years after the passage of this law the assem- 
bly was compelled, by the actions of " sundry persons of an 
ungoverned conversation" thrusting themselves into the 
towns, to provide that no person should come to reside in 
any town without the consent of the townsmen ; and a fine 
of twenty shillings for every week was imposed upon per- 
sons entertaining such sojourners without the consent of the 
townsmen. 4 In 1685 the assembly showed the same dis- 

1 Code of 1672, 65. 

• Conn. Col. Rec, 1678-1689, 34. 

3 Ibid. 

4 Oct. 12, 1682 (Col. Rec, 1678-1689, in). The preamble of the 
law is interesting : " Whereas sundry persons of an ungoverned con- 
versation thrust themselves into o r townships and by some underhand 



The Suffrage in Connecticut. 423 

position to guard carefully the town suffrage by reaffirming 
the provision of 1660, that before the owner of land in any 
town could dispose of his land to another individual, he 
must first offer it to the town. Only after the town's 
refusal to purchase could land be transferred to private per- 
sons. 1 Yet in spite of the care of the legislature, irregu- 
larities were frequent occurrences in the town elections. 
"Cunning contrivances and insinuations" were practised; 2 
special mention is made of " young persons" 3 and those 
who were not freeholders or householders voting in such 
elections ; 4 and a number of disputed elections took place. 5 
In one of these cases the assembly made the decision that 
the towns possessed the power of judging the qualifications 
of inhabitants and voters. 6 A slight extension of the suf- 
frage was made by the code of 1750, which gave an alterna- 
tive to the fifty shillings of rateable freehold the possession 
of forty pounds value of rateable personal estate. 7 

The suffrage in church meetings and elections was not 
exactly like that in the towns. In 1667 a dispute in Windsor 
over the choice of minister was, by the general court, sub- 
mitted to a vote of " all the freemen and householders" of 
the town; 8 but in another case the voters were merely 
described as inhabitants. 9 In 1699 a definite enactment 
gave to all the householders within any town or " allowed" 



wayes, either by pretence of being hired servants or of hiring of land 
or houses, become inhabitants in our townships, whereby much incon- 
veniency doth arise to such places, such persons often proveing 
vicious and burthensome and chargeable to the places where they 
come" . . . 

x Conn. Col. Rec., 1636-1665, 35* ', 1678-1689, 186. 

'/. H. Univ. Studies, VII, 91. 

'Code of 1715, 112-113. 

'Conn. Col. Rec, 1706-1716, 483-485. 

'Ibid., 486; 1726-1735, 85-86, 104; 1744-1750, 368. 

• Ibid., 1726-1735, 104. 

r Code of 1750, 241. 

8 Conn. Col. Rec, 1665-1677, 73~74. The election return shows 138 
voters in the town. 

'Ibid., 1678-1689, 101. 



424 Tlie Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

church society the right to call a minister and enter into 
agreements with him. 1 This was a wider suffrage than that 
for town elections; but it was not long retained in this 
form. A new law, in 1 708, 2 kept the broad householder or 
inhabitant franchise for those in full communion with the 
church, but required non-church-members who voted in 
church matters to possess the qualifications imposed by law 
upon voters in other town affairs. 3 

In 1728 the alternative of forty pounds personal estate to 
the fifty shilling freehold was introduced into the church 
elections, although not adopted in the town elections until 
much later. Under this act no one should " presume to 
vote in any society meeting for the choice of society officers, 
grants of rates, erecting of meeting-houses, regulating of 
schools, or any other thing proper to be voted in a society, 
unless such person or persons have a freehold in the same 
society rated at fifty shillings, or forty pounds in the com- 
mon list, or that are persons that are in full communion with 
the church." 4 

Early in the eighteenth century the church suffrage was 
complicated by the privileges given to Episcopalians and 
Quakers, whereby members of these sects who regularly 
attended their worship, were exempted from the payment 
of taxes for the support of the established churches. 5 This 
led to an illogical position of such dissenters, who, in spite 
of their non-attendance upon " the ministry of the Presby- 
terian, Congregational or Consociated churches," had vet 
" adventured to vote" in meetings concerning the laying of 
taxes and selection of ministers of those churches. 6 In 

1 Conn. Col. Rec, 1689-1706, 316. 

2 Ibid., 170&-1716, 48. 

8 " The major part of the inhabitants of any town, plantation, or 
societie, qualified as the law directs to vote in all other town affairs, 
or are members in full communion with the church in the said town 
or societie, that shall be present at a town or societie meeting legally 
warned, shall have power by the major vote of them so met to call 
and settle a minister" . . . 

* Conn. Col. Rec, 1726-1735, 211. 

6 In 1727 and 1729; Conn. Col. Rec, 1726-1735, 107, 237. 

Ibid., 1744-17 50, 218. 



The Suffrage in Connecticut. 425 

1746, therefore, an act was passed excluding from partici- 
pation in such meetings or elections all those who were 
exempt from the payment of taxes for the support of the 
regular churches. 1 After this time 2 the suffrage in religious 
societies, or in town meetings when religious subjects were 
discussed, was limited ( 1 ) to male persons, twenty-one years 
of age and in full communion with the church concerning 
which the suffrage was exercised; or (2) non-church- 
members, who paid taxes for the support of the established 
church, and who were possessed of a freehold rated at fifty 
shillings or a personal estate of forty pounds; but those 
who, by regular membership in and attendance upon certain 
legally determined churches dissenting from the Congrega- 
tional form were freed from the payment of church taxes, 
were also excluded from the ecclesiastical elections of the 
regular churches. 

The militia elections of Connecticut were based upon the 
reasonable and well-nigh universal custom of allowing all 
the soldiers to participate in the choice of their officers. In 
New Haven, indeed, it has been noticed that the suffrage in 
such cases was limited, as in all other forms, to the freemen 
of the colony; but that this method proved unpopular and 
sometimes even inconvenient has already been shown. 3 
After the union of 1662, however, the militia elections of 
the entire colony were conducted according to the pro- 
vision of the Connecticut code of 1650, which enacted " that 
the Souldgers shall onely make choyce of theire Millitary 
Ofncers and present them to the Perticular Courte ; but such 
onely shall bee deemed officers as the Courte shall con- 
firme." 4 The custom of nomination resulted almost always 
in the acceptance by the court of the persons chosen by the 
soldiers ; 5 although the records do show that on infrequent 

1 Conn. Col. Rec, 1744-1750, 218. A similar act had been passed eigh- 
teen years earlier in Massachusetts. 

2 A slight change was made in 1750; see code of 1769, 165. 

3 See ante. 

*Conn. Col Rec, 1636-1665, 543. 

5 See records passim; e.g., 163&-1665, 187, 210, 237, 290, 336 ; 1665- 
^77, 304. 




426 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 



occasions the court refused to confirm those who were pre- 
sented to them. 1 No change appears to have been made in 
this liberal suffrage except one in words rather than in 
spirit in the comprehensive military act of 1741. This act 
gave the right to vote for military officers to all those 
u obliged by law to keep arms." 2 

The Connecticut and New Haven towns had an economic 
organization of commoners similar to that in Massachusetts 
and the other New England colonies. Whatever may have 
been the origin of the town, whether it was an indigenous 
community or one erected by the colonial authorities, there 
existed in either case an economic partnership in the 
land ; the settlers who obtained the land constituted a quasi- 
corporation. 3 The land belonged to the original settlers and 
their legal successors; and the admission of an inhabitant 
into a town did not necessarily entitle the new-comer 
rights in commonage and in the undivided lands. In reality, 
however, there was frequently no distinction made between 
the town meeting of inhabitants and the corporation meet- 
ing of the proprietors of the town lands. 4 In the early 
history of many towns when the two classes were nearly 
identical, land grants and distributions were made in the 
open town meeting, and sometimes persons voted who had 
no share in the common lands. But changing conditions 
gradually led to a separation of the two classes; many 
persons came into the towns who could not purchase a 
share in the town stock in lands, and to whom the town 
refused to give such a share; the value of land rose after 
the population increased, and soon the early liberality in 
land distribution 5 gave place to a strong feeling of owner- 

1 Conn. Col. Rec, 1678-1689, 126; 1680-1706, 45; 1706-1716, 485. 

2 Ibid., 1735-1743, 379-387- 

3 Egleston, Land System of the New England Colonies, J. H. V 
Stud., IV, 580. 

4 It is interesting to notice that the only cases in which New Haven 
contemplated the extension of the suffrage to non-freemen were in 
respect to the ownership of lands. 

5 New Haven, in her early distributions, gave so many acres for each 
person, and so many for each share, — a combination of persons and 
property very unusual (Levermore, New Haven, 83-85). 



The Suffrage in Connecticut. 427 

ship among the original proprietors or their successors. The 
process of integration of the class of proprietors in the face 
of opposition by the inhabitants led to differing develop- 
ment in the several towns. One writer says that in Wethers- 
field the town overshadowed the proprietors, in Windsor 
the proprietors overshadowed the town, while in Hartford 
the balance was about equally preserved. 1 As late as 17 19 
the entire town of Simsbury retained control of the lands 
and, much to the offence of the proprietors, made many land 
grants. 2 Even where the proprietors alone controlled land 
matters, the question of the suffrage was a burning one, 
for it was not clear at first whether voting in such meetings 
should be in proportion to the shares of the respective pro- 
prietors or whether each proprietor should have but one 
vote. 3 

For many years after the settlement of the colony there 
was no general statutory provision respecting the rights or 
duties of proprietors of the undivided lands, 4 and their posi- 
tion must have been determined by the local customs and cir- 
cumstances of the respective towns. Although their lands 
became " an undoubted lawful estate of inheritance" to the 
proprietors and their successors, yet " the said proprietors 
did, for a considerable number of years in many of our 
towns, truly consent and agree that the said common lands 
might in whole or in part, be actually divided or disposed 
of by the major vote of the inhabitants of such towns in 
meeting assembled/' 5 In 1701 was passed what is believed 
to be the first act distinctly separating the proprietors from 
the town; but even in this act, which only concerned the 
building of fences about common lands, the advice of the 
selectmen of the town was required upon such matters. 6 
The code of 1702, however, went much farther in the 
erection of the proprietors as distinct corporations. Accord- 

1 Andrews, in /. H. Univ. Stud., VII, 52. 

2 Egleston, /. H. Univ. Stud., IV, 584. 
'Andrews, op. cit. 

*The code of 1672 makes no reference to proprietors of lands as 
possessing distinct communal rights or duties. 
5 Conn. Col. Rec, 1717-1725, 395. 
8 Ibid., 1689-1706, 346. 



428 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

ing to the provisions therein, the " Proprietors in any 
Comon Field in this Colony, or so many of them as are 
residing in the Town or Plantation where such Common 
Field is Situate," were empowered to meet together for 
certain communal purposes, and choose committeemen to 
attend to the details of management of the fields. 1 The 
question of suffrage was settled by allowing each person to 
vote in proportion to his holding, thus establishing an 
economic unit as a basis for voting in place of the earlier and 
more democratic personal suffrage. 2 

In spite of these requirements and of similar ones in an 
act of 1706, 3 the towns in some cases retained control of 
common lands. But the contest for possession of these 
lands led at last to actual riots between claimants under the 
authority of the towns and those under the authority of the 
proprietors. 4 In 1723 the assembly settled these differences 
by an act which acknowledged the property right of the 
proprietors ; but it stated that the proprietors had, in many 
towns, voluntarily permitted the towns to legislate about 
their lands ; and consequently that all land grants made in the 
past by towns under such circumstances should be valid. 5 
For the future, however, no person by becoming an in- 
habitant of a town, or by any other means " against or 
without the consent of such proprietors," could gain any 
title or interest in the common lands. The proprietors 
themselves or their legal representatives could hold meet- 
ings, and " by their major vote in such their meetings, (to 
be reckoned according to their interest in such common 
land,) to regulate, improve, manage and divide such com- 
mon land in such manner and proportion as they shall see 
good." Thus by this act the proprietors and town inhabi- 
tants were definitely distinguished; and the old political 

1 Laws of Connecticut, 1702, 16. 

" All matters concerning common fields " shall be determined by the 
vote of the major part of the Proprietors, which major part shall be 
computed, not according to the number of Persons that are Proprietors, 
but according to their interest in such Field." 

• Conn. Col. Rec, 1689- 1706, 544. 

* Ibid., 1717-1725, 332-348. 
5 Ibid., 396. 



The Suffrage in Connecticut. 429 

idea of voting in the proprietary meetings was overthrown 
not only by making the suffrage proportional to the respec- 
tive shares in land, but also by permitting the representa- 
tion of the proprietors by means of their legal agents. These 
changes took away from the meetings what little political 
character they had possessed, and made them simply the 
gatherings of business co-partners. 



CHAPTER XIV. 
The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 

I. From the Time of Settlement to the Charter of 1663. 

The colony of Rhode Island owed its immediate existence 
to the religious intolerance of Massachusetts. Around the 
borders of the great Puritan Commonwealth there arose 
numerous small settlements founded by Massachusetts men. 
Sometimes lured by the fertility of the neighboring la 
the exile of these persons was voluntary ; but in many cases 
the religious persecution of the Puritans drove their weaker 
opponents into new settlements where they hoped to live 
beyond the realm of Massachusetts interference. Some of 
the Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Maine settlements 
were founded for the first of these causes, and some on 
account of. the second ; but in the case of Rhode Island the 
religious motive was uppermost. Here to a greater degree 
than in Connecticut or New Hampshire we see a community 
of non-conformists; by no means a unit upon the points of 
difference with the Massachusetts religion, yet for one 
reason or another opposing the hierarchy, and out of the 
very multiplicity of their views compelled to tolerate one 
another's opinions. Williams had, of course, even in Massa- 
chusetts, spoken in favor of liberty of conscience ; and under 
his influence the necessity for toleration arising from the 
multiplicity of beliefs became a conscious ideal of the new- 
state. 

And as their theory of religion was an original one, so 
Rhode Island's political organization was purely indigent 
there was no charter obtained from the king, no grar. 
land or town privileges from the General Court of Massa- 
chusetts, nor any delegation of authority from proprietor or 
chartered company. In defiance of the monarchical theories 
of the time, political organization proceeded not from above 
down to the people, but from the people up to their rulers. 
A small group of Englishmen found themselves in the 
430 



The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 431 

American wilderness, almost in a " state of nature," as the 
eighteenth century philosophers would say. Too poor and 
insignificant to expect formal incorporation by the English 
government, and under the impelling necessity of reaching 
a common rule of action among themselves, they were 
forced to adopt some form of association. The agreement 
might first be needed in order to get a joint stock to purchase 
lands from the Indians, it would be continued in order to 
provide for the distribution of the land so purchased, and 
be perpetuated by the necessity of adopting some rules for 
civil action, and the election of new members or of local 
officers. The association might be started with a written 
document, as when the settlers on Rhode Island, ignoring 
altogether English king or government, say with charming 
naivete that we " incorporate ourselves into a Bodie Poli- 
tick," and submit " our persons, lives and estates unto our 
Lord Jesus Christ, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords ;" 
or it might be a personal arrangement, as that between 
Roger Williams and his five associates, or between Samuel 
Gorton and his friends at Warwick, of which to-day we 
have no written record. In any event a more or less formal 
agreement was voluntarily reached among these exiles, ac- 
cording to which they virtually erected themselves into a 
corporation, and proceeded to adopt such local laws and 
elect such officers as appeared to them necessary. 

For a time these distinct town governments were the only 
form of political organization in the Narragansett region, 
but union among the towns came within a few years. First 
there was the voluntary federation in 1640 of Portsmouth 
and Newport, both situated on Rhode Island, and the latter 
an offshoot of the former. This was followed by the en- 
forced union of all the towns under the charter of 1644. 
But a united colony was not so easily established, and the 
grant of a conflicting charter to the towns on Rhode Island 
led to great confusion. Another voluntary union of the 
towns under the charter of 1644 was made permanent by 
the grant of a royal charter in 1663. It is important for our 
study of the suffrage in Rhode Island to remember that the 
towns antedated the colony ; there was a town freemanship, 
there were town meetings and town elections before any 



432 Tlie Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

colonial freemanship or elections existed. And throughout 
the whole period of our study we shall find that in each indi- 
vidual's case, as in the history of the colony, the town free- 
manship came before the colony freemanship ; a person must 
be admitted a freeman of some town before he could 
come a freeman of the colony. We must, therefore, look at 
the suffrage conditions in the towns before considering the 
colonial franchise. 

Before the granting of the first charter to the colony there 
were three organized towns, Providence, Portsmouth and 
Newport, and an unorganized settlement on the land later 
called by the name of Warwick. In Providence Roger Wil- 
liams purchased a tract of land from the Indians; he ad- 
mitted twelve others to an equal share in this land, and in 
his " initial deed" he anticipated the association of " such 
others as the major part of us shall admit into the same 
fellowship of vote with us." * A town organization was 
early formed, but no record exists of a town agreement, 
until a second party of thirteen heads of families was ac- 
cepted and made " incorporate" 2 into the town. The new- 
comers signed the well-known agreement of obedience to the 
town government in civil matters : 

" We whose names are hereunder desirous to inhabitt in ye townc 
of prouidence do promise to subiect ourselves in actiue or passiue 
obedience to all such orders or agreements as shall be made for publick 
good of o r body in an orderly way by the maior consent of the present 
Inhabitants maisters of families Incorporated together into a towne 
fellowship and others whome they shall admitt unto them 
only in ciuill things." * 

In the case of Portsmouth and Newport the town life 
began with a voluntary agreement among the intending 
settlers before they arrived at the place of settlement. Thus 
nineteen persons intending to settle upon the Island of 

1 Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, 
I, 19-24 (quoted hereafter as R. I. Col. Rec.) ; Arnold, Hist, of R. I 
(ed. of 1894), I, 100; Staples, Annals of Providence, 26-33. 

■ R. I. Col. Rec, I, 20. 

* Providence Records, I, 1 ; R. I. Col. Rec, I, 14. 



The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 433 

Aquedneck (Rhode Island), met at Providence on March 7, 
1637-8, and incorporated themselves by the following- agree- 
ment, 

"We whose names are underwritten do here solemnly in the pres- 
ence of Jehovah incorporate ourselves into a Bodie Politick and as he 
shall help, will submit our persons, lives and estates unto our Lord 
Jesus Christ, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and to all those 
perfect and most absolute lawes of his given us in his holy word of 
truth, to be guided and judged thereby, Exod. 24, 3, 4. 2 Cron. 11, 3. 
2 Kings 11, 17." 1 

The inhabitants who, in 1639, set out from the north of the 
island and founded Newport made a mutual promise to 
bear equal burdens according to their strength or property : 

" It is agreed. By vs whose hands are underwritten, to propagate 
a Plantation in the midst of the Island or elsewhere; And doe 
engage ourselves to bear equall charges, answerable to our strength and 
estates in common; and that our determinations shall be by major 
voice of judge and elders ; the Judge to have a double voice." 2 

The latter agreement shows a more compact organization 
than the earlier one, and a stronger political spirit, but it 
makes no mention of God. Another agreement entered into 
by those who remained behind after the officers and prin- 
cipal men had moved to the centre of the island, is the only 
one of the town agreements which makes reference to the 
English government. 

"We, whose names are under written doe acknowledge ourselves 
the legall subjects of his Majestie King Charles, and in his name doe 
hereby binde ourzelves into a civill body politicke under his lawes 
according to matters of justice." 3 

In three of these agreements it will be noticed that the 
political organization is begun by the voluntary compact of 
the signers to the document, while in the Providence paper 

*R. I. Col. Rec, I, 52; Arnold, History of Rhode Island (edition of 
1894), I, 124. 
"Ibid., I, 87. 

8 April 30, 1639 ; R- I- Col. Rec, I, 70. 

28 



434 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

there is a joint agreement between a group of new-comers 
and the old proprietors. We have here democracy in the 
making; the fiat of the group of friends or neighbors that 
they will unite in a civil government based upon the principle 
of equality. This principle is here an outgrowth of two 
things; their entire isolation from any higher authority 
which might impose governors upon them, and the eco- 
nomic situation according to which they shared equally in 
the burden of purchasing land and enjoyed equally the right 
to lands so acquired. This was carried to such an extent 
that the widows of proprietors sometimes gave their con- 
to matters of a purely civil nature in a way which, if it 
cannot be called exercising the suffrage franchise, at least 
shows some participation in the political rights of land- 
holders. 1 

The original proprietors of the towns did not keep all 
their purchase, but they admitted others to their number 
under certain restrictions which differed somewhat in the 
several towns. 2 But since the original holders could admit 
new associates upon any terms they saw fit to impose, the 
suffrage qualifications in these towns are identical with the 
conditions imposed upon freemen at the time of their accept- 
ance by the town. 

In Providence, Roger Williams' first twelve associates 
together paid him thirty pounds, and the second group of 
thirteen persons gave him twenty pounds, for the privilege 
of associating with him on equal terms in the land and 
government. 3 In 1640 the town resolved that all present 

1 Among the signatures of persons accepting the report of the arbi- 
trators in Providence in July, 1640, are those of two widows (/?. / 
Col. Rec, I, 31). 

2 Persons so admitted were usually called freemen, following the 
Massachusetts custom with which the settlers must have been familiar ; 
sometimes the word townsman is used, and occasionally they arc 
called inhabitants ; but generally the latter phrase is reserved for a 
class of persons who were permitted to live in the town, but to whom 
the political rights and land claims of the proprietors or freemen were 
not extended. 

3 R. I. Col. Rec, I, 21, 23. 



The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 435 

and future townsmen should pay thirty shillings. 1 But oc- 
casionally smaller payments were made, presumably for 
smaller land grants than those given to the early settlers. 2 
On Rhode Island the general meeting on June 27, 1638, 
ordered that all persons, whether freemen or inhabitants, 
upon the island should pay two shillings for each acre of land 
occupied. 3 In one instance, in Providence, each one of a 
group of thirty-five settlers received a free grant of twenty- 
five acres; but they signed an agreement not to claim " any 
Righte, to the Purchasse of the Said plantation; Nor any 
privillidge of Vote, in Towne Affaires; untill we shall be 
received, as free-Men of the said Towne of Providence." 4 
Besides the usual money payment, other conditions were im- 
posed upon the new inhabitant. He must in all cases be 
acceptable to the town, and admitted by the vote of the town 
meeting 5 or of the town officers ; 6 he might be required to 
fence his land, 7 or to build a house on his lot, 8 or not to be 
absent from his land longer than a specified time ; 9 and on 
Rhode Island a purchaser who did not reside on the island 
lost his vote. 10 In practically all cases the new settlers were 
required to take some form of oath or " engagement" to the 
government of the town into which they were admitted. 
This is seen in the agreements made by later comers in 
Providence to abide by the laws and orders made by the 
major vote of the town ; 1A and again on Rhode Island where 

1 R. I. Col. Rec, I, 28. A list of the " names of Such as have paid 
all their purchase money and have quittances" is extant, showing the 
names of forty-two persons (Providence Records, II, 31). 

*R. I. Col. Rec, I, 15; Providence Records, I, 3. 

3 Ibid., 56. 

4 Providence Records, II, 29. These were called quarter-right inhabi- 
tants, and they became entitled to one-quarter the share of a full 
proprietor in subsequent land divisions (Arnold, History of Rhode 
Island, I, 121). 

*R. I. Col. Rec, I, 53- 

6 Ibid., I, 28, 84. 

'Providence Records, II, 1. 

*R. I. Col. Rec, I, 72. 

4 Providence Records, II, 3. 

10 R. I. Col. Rec, I, 125. 

n Providence Records, I, 1 ; II, 29, 90. 



436 The Suffrage Frcmchise in the English Colo. 

the new settlers must submit themselves to the " governi; 
that is or shall be established according to the v 
God." l In Warwick every inhabitant was compelled 
the town compact and agree that he would not recognize 
other jurisdiction than that of the colony; 2 while on R] 
Island an inhabitant or freeman endeavoring to bring in 
other power was to be treated as a perjurer. 3 

Thus to become an inhabitant of one of the towns a p 
must first be accepted by the town; in most cases he n 
make a pecuniary payment; he was required to submit 
the town government and promise to bring in no other 
thority; and he might be required to submit to various ol 
conditions concerning the use of his land. Yet even admis- 
sion as an inhabitant under all these restrictions did not 
essarily make a man a freeman or voter of the town in which 
he was resident. The early records give abundant evidence 
of the existence of two distinct classes of inhabitants, c 
posed of those who were admitted as freemen and those 
had not yet received that privilege. 4 As time went on the 
tendency was to extend the freemanship and the suffrai;* 
all freeholders, and in 1658 the town meeting of Providence 
ordered that " all those that in joy land in v e jurisdii 
this Towne are freemen." 5 While thus extending the 
political rights of freemen, their economic rights in the I 
lands were restricted. In the early years we find the si 
ment that the undisposed lands belong to the freemen. but 
soon a distinction arose here, as in the other New England 
colonies, between the freemen and the proprietors of the 
town and common lands. Admission to the freemanship 
came to be considered merely as a grant of political p<> 
while land matters were disposed of not in a general t 
meeting, but in meetings of those interested in the t 
lands, made up of the descendants and successors of the orig- 

X R. I. Col. Rec, I, 53, 9i- 
2 Arnold, History of Rhode Island, I, 216. 
*R. I. Cof. Rec, I, 118. 

4 Providence Records, II, 29, 96, 112;; R. I. Col. Rcc, I, 56, 58, 66, 
118, 124. 

8 Providence Records, II, 112; see also ibid., 96. 
6 R. /. Col. Rec, I, 83. 



The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 437 

inal proprietors. 1 The homogeneous economic and social 
character of the early settlements gave place to those differ- 
ences of wealth and occupation which led to the factional 
quarrels over the colonial paper currency. 

The political activities in these towns must have been of a 
very narrow nature. The earliest form was the town meet- 
ing, or the " Bodye," upon which attendance was compul- 
sory ; 2 but at a very early date, and in Portsmouth and New- 
port from the first, the practice arose of relieving the town 
meeting by giving details of administration to certain elect- 
ive officers. 3 Portsmouth and Newport developed an admin- 
istrative system earlier than did Providence, and before the 
settlers reached the island, a "judge" had been chosen; 4 
while within a few months three elders, a constable and a 
sergeant were elected by the town meeting. 5 A similar or- 
ganization was established at Newport when many of the 
Portsmouth (called Pocosset at that time) settlers moved 
to the southwestern side of the island. 6 Providence and 
Warwick administered their affairs by irregularly appointed 
arbitrators 7 until 1640 in Providence, when five " dis- 
posers" were appointed by the town; and until 1647 m War- 
wick, when a town organization was established. 8 The 
early elections in the towns may have been viva voce, but 
by 1639 the elders in Portsmouth, at least, were chosen by 
"votes" and by "Providence;" 9 and at Newport a free- 
man who was unable to attend the elections could send a 

'Arnold, History of Rhode Island, I, 256; Providence Records, 
passim; see post, 469. 
2 R. I. Col. Rec, I, 13, 15, 57, 81. 

3 Ibid., 15, 30, 55. The earliest officers were those appointed to dis- 
pose of the town lands. 

4 Ibid., 52. 

5 Ibid., 63, 64. 
'Ibid., 90, 93. 

7 Ibid., 27; Arnold, History of R. I., I, 176. 

8 R. I. Col. Rec, I, 129, note. 

9 Ibid., 64. We are not told what means were taken to ascertain the 
will of Providence, whether it were by lot or merely the principle vox 
populi, vox dei. 



438 The Suffrage Franchise in tJie English Colonies. 

" sealed vote" to the judge. 1 In all these elections the choice 
was made by the freemen in the town meeting. 2 

When the town isolation gave place to political union, 
the town suffrage mentioned above became the basis for the 
colonial freemanship. The first step in this direction came 
in 1640 by the union of Portsmouth and Newport. These 
towns were settled by the same persons, for many of the 
proprietors left the young town at the northern end of the 
island to plant a settlement at Newport, and their geographi- 
cal situation could not but force some kind of political un- 
derstanding upon the two towns. After a short independent 
existence the island towns formed a union or confederation 
which provided for a freemanship of the island, in addition 
to that of the towns ; 3 it established a general form 
government for the whole island ; 4 and it permitted each 
town to direct its local affairs by its own courts or t 
meetings. 5 

This government, with such remarkably modern political 
machinery, was not less radical in its theory of popular 
authority. The general court of the island, on March 
1640-41, agreed unanimously 

" that the Government which this Bodie Politick doth attend vnto in 
this Island, and the Jurisdiction thereof, in favour of our Prince is a 
Democracie, or Popular Government; that is to say, It is in the 
Powre of the Body of Freemen orderly assembled, or the major part 



1 R. I. Col. Rec, I, 98. 

2 Only one form of broader suffrage has been noted. Newport set 
an example in her first year, which was adopted by the colony and 
became the custom for a number of years. In 1639 the town gave the 
militia, or " Traine Band," the privilege " to select and chuse such 
persons, one or more from among themselves, as they would have to 
be officers among them ; to exercise and traine them ;" but the officers 
so chosen must be presented to the magistrates for approval. As the 
soldiers included all males capable of bearing arms, later specified as 
between the ages of sixteen and sixty, it will be seen that this militia 
suffrage was considerably wider than the town freemanship (R. I. Col. 
Rec, I, 93). This was probably drawn from Massachusetts custom. 

'R. I. Col. Rec, I, 100. 
4 Ibid., 100, 101. 
'Ibid., 106. 



The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 439 

of them, to make or constitute Just Lawes, by which they will be 
regulated, and to depute from among themselves such Ministers as 
shall see them faithfully executed between Man and Man." x 

The short time during which this confederation on the island 
continued is no indication of its importance in the formation 
of the colonial government. When the organization under 
the first charter was completed, its makers drew largely from 
the forms of this first union. They adopted its general and 
local freemanship idea, its division of governmental powers, 
the names and functions of many of its officers, the proxy- 
elective system, and even the popular election of militia offi- 
cers. Many of these features had, of course, been introduced 
into the island by the emigrants from Massachusetts, and 
then from Newport and Portsmouth the customs at last 
entered into the general colonial organization. 

A second advance towards union came from England in 
the form of the charter granted on March 14, 1643-4, by the 
Commissioners of Plantations. The early town organization 
and the first union had been purely local in their origin, and 
had received no authority from the English government, 
although in some cases an allegiance to the king was recog- 
nized. 2 The charter of 1644 granted to the " Inhabitants of 
the Towns of Providence, Portsmouth, and Newport, a free 
and absolute Charter of Incorporation to be known by the 
Name of the Incorporation of Providence Plantations, in the 
Xarraganset Bay, in New England." 3 It gave them " full 
Power and Authority to rule themselves, and such others as 
shall hereafter inhabit within any Part of the said Tract 
of land, by such a Form of Civil Government, as by volun- 
tary consent of all, or the greater Part of them, they shall 
find most suitable to their Estate and Condition." They 
were impowered to make civil laws and constitutions, and 
choose or displace officers of justice; provided that such 
regulations for civil government should be conformable to 

*R. I. Col. Rec, I, 112. It is to be noted that this resolution ante- 
dated the commonwealth movement in England, and even contained 
a clause saving the authority of the king. 

2 R. I. Col. Rec, I, 70, 112. 

3 Ibid., 143-146. 






440 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

the laws of England " so far as the nature and constitution 
of the place will admit." 

Three years after the date of this charter, a general 
of election was held at Portsmouth, at which a provincial 
organization was erected and a code of laws adopted. The 
new government, shared in by Warwick as well as by the 
three earlier towns, was partly representative and partly 
direct. The Rhode Island freemen, meeting May 19 
1647, agreed that their form of government was " DEMO- 
CRATICALLY ; that is to say, a Government held by y« 
free and voluntarie consent of all, or the greater parte of 
the free Inhabitants." * There was to be a general assembly 
of all the freemen held annually, not only for the election ot 
officers, but also for the enactment of laws. 2 In addition to 
this there were frequent meetings of a General Court com- 
posed of six committeemen appointed for each town ; 3 and 
at least in one case other freemen, whose " helpe is desired," 
were permitted to tarry if they would. 4 An inspection of 
certain of the acts of this assembly and the subsequent ex- 
perience under them, down to 1663, ma y De °f value to an 
understanding of the suffrage in the colony. These features 
fall into three classes ; first, the admission of freemen, or the 
manner of granting the suffrage ; second, the proxy system, 
or the manner in which the suffrage was exercised; third, 
the subjects upon which popular suffrage was exercised, in- 
cluding the election of general and town officers, the making 
of laws in general assembly, and the popular initiative and 
referendum of legislative topics. 

The path to the provincial suffrage lay through the free- 
manship of the towns; he who had been accepted as an in- 
habitant of one of the towns and admitted as one of its free- 
men could hope, as a matter of course, to be granted the 
colonial freemanship. The charter of 1644, unlike that of 
1663, did not use the word freemen, but simply incorporated 
the " inhabitants" of the three towns. Yet the practice was 
to require a formal vote and admission to the town and 

*R. I. Col. Rec, I, 156. 

2 Ibid., 149, 150, 191. 

3 Ibid., 149 ; also passim after p. 228. 
* Ibid., 209. 



The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 441 

then a similar entrance into the colonial freemanship. 1 The 
acceptance of freemen during this period sometimes took 
place in the annual general assembly, or more often, in the 
representative court ; 2 and it is noteworthy that no instance 
of refusal of the freemanship to those proposed for the fran- 
chise has been found for these nineteen years. Usually, the 
candidates were proposed and accepted by name; at other 
times there were wholesale admissions of freemen. Thus 
after the reunion of the four towns in 1654 following 
Coddington's abortive attempt to establish an independent 
government on the island, the commissioners of the four 
towns ordered " that all those inhabitants in this Collonie 
that have been received freemen to act in any Towne or 
Collonie since Mr. Coddington's commission was exhibited, 
shall be owned freemen of y e Collonie." 3 In 1656 the 
settlers at Patuxett were in a body to " be lovingly enter- 
tained as freemen of this Collony, to have theire free voates 
in makinge of lawes, choosinge of officers in Towne and 
Collony, with the enjoyment of all priviledges belonginge to 
freemen of this jurisdiction." 4 The interval between admis- 
sion to the town franchise and the grant of the colonial free- 
manship might be very short. We have evidence of this in 
the case of Providence in 1658. On May 15th, the town 
meeting voted that all freeholders were to be accounted free- 
men of the town; 5 and on May 18th, twenty-nine freemen 
of Providence were proposed and admitted freemen of the 
colony, 6 who, it may be fairly supposed, were town freemen 
coming in under the new town regulation. 

Aside from the prerequisite of town freemanship, few 
other qualifications appear to have been imposed upon the 
candidate for colonial freedom. We learn that in the first 

1 R. I. Col. Rec, I, 263, 280, 299-302, 340, 387, 426. The records 
usually show that the candidate for the freemanship came from a 
particular town, and in only a few cases is the name of the town 
lacking {ibid., 282, 303, 356). 

2 See above references. 

Z R. I. Col. Rec, I, 280. 

*Ibid., 339, 340. 

5 Providence Records, II, 112. 

*R. /. Col. Rec, I, 387- 



442 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Color 

meeting in 1647 ft was agreed that all should " set their 
hands to an engagement to the Charter;" ' and it is pr 
ble that those subsequently admitted were required to 
scribe to a similar agreement. During the Puritan C 
monwealth period, the inhabitants of Rhode Island, as in the 
other colonies, were individually required to submit to the 
new " State of England" and render obedience to it, under 
the penalty of forfeiting the benefit accruing under any law 
of the colony, — which presumably meant disfranchisement. 2 
Beyond these points, the towns enjoyed the right to fix the 
qualifications of town freemen, and consequently in an in- 
direct manner, of the colonial freemen as well. Many years 
were to pass before any general law established their quali- 
fications. 

At the meeting in May, 1647, f° r tne election of officers 
and enactment of laws under the charter of 1644, the free- 
men of the colony were present in person, the records stating 
that the " major parte of the Colonie was present." 3 
even this meeting lost its pure democratic character before 
the three days of its session had passed. It was agreed that 
if forty or more persons remained at the meeting, they should 
have the authority of the whole body ; 4 and later it was 
ordered that "if any do depart, he shall leave his vote be- 
hind him, that his power remain, though his person be 
absent." 5 Thus in the first assembly, the principle of pr 
voting was recognized ; and by legislation it was perma- 
nently established. The assembly made provision for an 
annual election of officers in a general assembly of the free- 
men; but " forasmuch as many may be necessarily detained, 
that they cannot come to the General Court of Election, that 
then they shall send their votes sealed up unto the said Court, 
which shall be as effective as their personal appearance." ' 
Nothing further was said concerning the method of return- 
ing the individual votes, but corruption inevitably crept into 

Rec, I, 147. 



l R. I. 


Col. 


*Ibid., 


305. 


3 Ibid., 


147. 


'Ibid. 




"Ibid., 


151. 


'Ibid., 


149- 



The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 443 

such a lax system. Only two years later it was found neces- 
sary to appoint a special committee to examine some of the 
votes, and the assembly itself passed an order to prevent 
irregularities in the future by directing- that " none shall 
bringe any voates but such as they receive from the voaters 
hands." 1 The proxy system here established was without 
doubt drawn from the custom of the town of Newport, 2 and, 
with some modifications it lasted throughout the colonial 
history of Rhode Island. The freeman was privileged either 
to attend the general court of elections in person, or to send 
his ballot in some prescribed manner to the meeting. Per- 
sonal attendance was forbidden after 1760, but through the 
whole colonial period the written paper ballots were col- 
lected in the several towns and sent to the court of election 
to be examined and counted. 3 In a similar manner the 
voter's privilege to initiate legislation, or to pass upon that 
which had been adopted by the representative court of assist- 
ants, was exercised by means of individual ballots sent up 
to the general officers to be counted. 

The Rhode Island freeman during the period 1647- 1663 
possessed a wider field in which to exercise his suffrage 
powers than did the voter of any other colony at that time. 
The freemen of the colony could attend in person or send 
their ballots to the annual election of colonial officers; the 
freemen of the respective towns could elect their town 
officers 4 and their commissioners to the colony courts; 5 
while all the soldiers of the militia companies could vote 
in elections for military officers. 6 In the pure democratic 
legislative assembly the freeman had a voice in the passage 

1 R. I. Col. Rec, I, 217. 

1 The colonial law of 1647 contains part of the language of an order 
of Newport of January 29, 1639-40, according to which the elections 
were to be held annually by the freemen, but " such as shall be neces- 
sarily detained to send in their votes, sealed up to the Judge" (R. I. 
Col. Rec, I, 98). 

3 See post, 463-467. 

*R. I. Col. Rec, I, 150, 151, 215. 

3 Ibid., 147, 209, 221, 228, 229, 236, 317. 

8 This feature, like the proxy voting, is also to be found in the early 
organization upon Rhode Island, R. I. Col. Rec, I, 93, "5, "7, 120, 153- 



444 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

of all laws ; but this power did not last long, and the con- 
venient representative assembly composed of six commis- 
sioners from each town was permitted to carry on the work 
of legislation, until in 1651, it was declared " the lawe 
makinge Assemblie" of the colony. 1 But although the free- 
man lost his right to attend the legislative body, he still pos- 
sessed the power of initiating or disallowing legislation. 
One of the orders of the assembly of 1647 permitted the 
cussion of general matters in any town meeting, and pro- 
vided that if any action was there determined upon, the 
town clerk should certify the matter to the other three towns. 
The subject was then to be " agitated" in the other t< 
and voted upon; then the representative committeemen of 
the towns were to meet, and " finding the Major parte of the 
Colonie concurring in the case, it shall stand for a I 
till the next Generall Assembly of all the people, then 
there to be considered, whether any longer to stand vea 
or no." 2 

But more valuable than the initiative was the popular 
referendum which also dates from 1647. Another orde 
that year permitted (or perhaps compelled) the general 
court of committeemen to propose measures to the towns. 
The towns were then to discuss the subjects and " the 
votes shall be collected and sealed up," and sent to the gen- 
eral recorder; and " if major voice determine the case," the 
measure should become a law until the next meeting of the 
general assembly of the people. 3 The referendum became 
the subject of frequent legislation after 1647, evidently a 
result of attempts to put it into practice. In 1650 4 the 
representative assembly was required to submit all its 1 

1 R. I. Col. Rec, I, 236. The members of these "general courts" 
were elected for each occasion, and not for a stated time; but by an 
order of 1655 they were to stand for a year unless the towns cho 
send others {ibid., 317). The frequent election and meeting of the 
commissioners seemed " to be some burden on the people." and in 1658 
they were to meet but once a year unless specially called by the presi- 
dent and assistants {ibid., 400). 

2 R. I. Col. Rec, I, 149. 

3 Ibid. 

4 Ibid., 229. 






The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 



445 



to the several towns within six days after its adjournment, 
and within the next three days the town was to be called 
together to consider the laws. 

"And if any freeman mislike any law then made, they shall then 
send their votes with their names fixed thereto vnto the Generall 
Recorder within tenn dayes after the reading of thoss lawes and no 
longer. And if itt appeare that the major vote within that, time pre- 
fixed shall come in and declare itt to be a nullity, then shall the Re- 
corder signifie it to ye President, and the President shall forthwith 
signifie to ye Townes that such or such lawes is a null, and the silence 
to the rest shall be taken for approbation and confirmation of the lawes 
made." 

In 1658 we are told that "it is conceived a wholesome 
liberty for the whole or major parte of the free inhabitants 
of this collony orderly to consider of the lawes made by the 
Commissioners' Courts, and upon findinge discommodity in 
any law made by the said court, then orderly to shew their 
dislike and soe to invalid such a law." 1 

No absolute evidence has been found in the records to 
show that the initiative and the referendum were ever exer- 
cised, and it is unlikely that the former was adopted. The 
frequent legislation upon the subject of the referendum, 
however, seems to point to considerable popular interest in 
the matter, if not to an actual fact of political organization ; 2 
and in Providence, at least, the records show that at this 
time, and for many years thereafter, the laws of each assem- 
bly were read in the town meeting. 3 There is no record of 
the popular veto of a legislative act. Yet the ideal, even if 
not carried into practice, shows a strength of democratic 
thought which is remarkable. 

1 R. I. Col. Rec, I, 401. The determination of such invalidity was 
to be made by a majority of each town instead of a majority of the 
colony. But two years later, since the privileges of the people had not 
been "clearly evinced," it was enacted that the disallowance of laws 
should take place upon the vote of a majority of the free inhabitants 
of the colony, "although any one towne or other should be wholly 
silent therein" {ibid., 429). 

2 A detailed study of the town records might throw some light upon 
this point, but the writer has not had opportunity to do this. 

3 Providence Records, III, 25, 37, etc. 



446 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 



II. Under the Charter of 1663. 

After the restoration of the English monarchy, the Rhode 
Island assembly appointed an agent in England to see that 
their privileges, liberties and boundaries were preserved in- 
tact. 1 John Clarke, the agent, shortly afterwards presented 
a most humble and supplicatory letter to the king, praying 
for a confirmation of the charter privileges of the coU 
Accordingly, on July 8, 1663, a new charter was issued 
which erected a corporate political company, composed of 
freemen. 3 Twenty-seven named persons and ** all such 
others as now are, or hereafter shall bee admitted and made 
ffree of the company and societie of our collonie of Provi- 
dence Plantations in the Narragansett Bay, in New- Eng- 
land, shall bee, from tyme to tyme, and forever hereafter, a 
bodie corporate and politique, in ffact and name, by the 
name of the Governor and Company of the English Collonie 
of Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, in Xew-Eng- 
land, in America." The general officers of the company 
were to be elected annually, although the first incumbents 
were named in the charter. An assembly composed of six 
deputies from Newport, four each from Providence, Ports- 
mouth, and Warwick, and two for every other town, w; 
meet twice a year. Remarkably broad powers were given 
to this assembly, but we need note here only the clause for 
the admission of freemen. By it the assembly could " choose, 
nominate, and apoynt, such and soe manye other person 
they shall thinke ffitt, and shall be willing to accept the same, 
to bee ffree of the sayd Company and body politique." Offi- 
cers should be chosen annually by the general court or assem- 
bly, " by such greater part of the sayd Company, for the 
tyme beinge, as shall bee then and there present." 

The charter of 1663 stated in more definite terms than 
those of the charter of 1644 the form of incorporation of 
the colony, and it placed additional emphasis upon the free- 
manship idea : but in practice it introduced very few chancres 
into the constitution of the colony. Since the charter vested 

*R. I. Col Rec. I. 433-435- 

*Ibid., 485-491. 'Ibid., II, 3 






The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 447 

legislative power in the assembly, it was held that the power 
of the people to annul laws by vote in town meetings was 
inconsistent with the charter; 1 and some confusion was 
caused by the ambiguous terms of the charter in describing 
elections. It was uncertain whether the elections were to 
be by the representative assembly, or by an assembly of the 
freemen ; and if the latter, there were doubts whether proxy 
votes could be received. 2 As the charter interrupted but 
slightly the customs and laws of the colony, we can proceed 
at once to consider the development of the suffrage during 
the next one hundred years under the charter. For this pur- 
pose, it will be best to treat, first, of the qualifications of 
electors in the colony elections ; secondly, the proxy system 
or method of balloting and a few other facts concerning 
elections ; and thirdly, other elections than those for colony 
officers. 

Although the new charter gave over to the assembly the 
whole subject of admission of freemen, yet no change was 
made in the custom which had previously existed. The 
applicant for colonial freedom must first have been accepted 
as a freeman of some town before he was qualified for the 
higher duties. After gaining the town freedom, the free- 
man's name was usually proposed to the general assembly 
by the town clerk, 3 although sometimes the applicant him- 
self petitioned for the colonial franchise. 4 There are very 
few instances in which the granting of freedom w 7 as refused 
or even postponed after the presentation of names to the 
assembly. 5 It was very unusual for the assembly to inquire 
into the returns from the towns ; apparently, if a man was 
properly admitted into a town, he could, if he desired, ob- 
tain the colonial freedom as well. So strong was the custom 
in this particular that the assembly, when it came to impose 
qualifications upon the freemanship, found it necessary to 

*R. I. Col. Rec, II, 27. 

2 Ibid., 28, 29, 39, 62. 

3 Ibid., 147, 185. 
*Ibid., no, 147. 

5 The only cases noticed in scores of references to the subject of 
admission of freemen will be found in R. I. Col. Rec, II, 59, 185, 2 3%> 
337- 



448 Tlie Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

place the restrictions not simply upon the freemen of the 
colony, but also upon the town freemen. 

Before 1663 there was practically no general qualification 
for the freemanship, since the towns admitted or refused to 
admit what persons they would. After the new charter, 
however, the admission of freemen in towns and colon) 
came the subject of frequent legislation. The first general 
qualification was imposed as a result of the demands of the 
English government. The royal commissioners who made 
so much trouble for themselves and the colonists in I 
necticut and Massachusetts also turned their investigations 
upon Rhode Island. Carr and Carter, two of the commis- 
sioners, made known the king's desires to Rhode Island. 
The requirements were the same as those discussed more 
fully under the other two colonies; all inhabiting house- 
holders were to take an oath of allegiance to the king ; and 
" all men of competante estates and of civill conversat 
who acknowledge and are obediante to the civill magistrate, 
though of differing judgements'' should be admitted as free- 
men and have liberty to elect or be elected to office. 1 The 
assembly in complying with these requirements necessarily 
imposed new restrictions upon the suffrage. All present 
freemen, and all admitted in the future, were compelled to 
take an engagement of allegiance to the king and of obedi- 
ence to the laws and charter of the colony, 2 and those re- 
fusing were to forfeit the suffrage franchise as well as all 
the other rights of freemen. The assembly accepted as 
readily the other proposed qualifications for the suffrage 

l R. I. Col. Rec, II, no. 

2 Ibid., 112. The oath is as follows: "You, A. B., sollemly and 
cearly engage true and faithfull aleagiance vnto his Majestye Charles 
the Second, King of England, his heires and successors, to beare and 
due obediance vnto the laws established, from time to time in this 
jurisdiction to yeald vnto the vtmost of your power, according to the 
previlidge by his said Majesty granted, in religioues and civill con- 
cearnments to this Collony in the Charter ; which said engagement 
you make vnder the perrill and penalty of perjury." The same oath 
was to be taken by all men over eighteen years of age (ibid., 113)- 
See also Providence Records, III, 64, 101, 199; IV, 55. 



The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 449 

and embodied them in the following order, 1 that those 
persons who 

"take the aforesaid engagement and are of competent estates, civill 
conversation, and obediant to the civill magistrate, shall be admitted 
freemen of this Collony vpon their exprese desire therein declared to 
the General Assembly, either by themselves with sufficient testimony 
of their fittnes and qualificationes as shall by the Assembly be deemed 
satisfactory; or if by the chief e officer of the towne or townes where 
they live, they be proposed and declared as aforesaid; and that none 
shall have admission to vote for publicke officers, or deputy es, or enjoy 
any priviledge of freemen till admitted by the Assembly as aforesaid, 
and their names recorded in the gennerall records of this Collony." 

This full compliance of the Rhode Island authorities was 
very acceptable to the royal commissioners, who write to 
England in favorable terms concerning the colony, and relate 
how " they admitt all to be freemen who desire it." 2 The 
new qualification does not appear to have made the admission 
of freemen any easier, for during the next few years rela- 
tively few new freemen were admitted. On the contrary, it 
must temporarily have excluded many from voting, as some 
refused to take the form of allegiance required, and for 
several years there was a class of non- jurors in Providence 
who interfered in elections and caused heated contests. 3 

The close relationship between the freedom of the towns 
and that of the colony is clearly shown in an act of 1666. 4 
This act impowered the town meetings " to make Such men 
freemen of their Towns as they Judge may be meet & may 
be seruiceable to serve in y e Towns in Town Offices." After 
admission by the towns, the names of all such persons were 
to be presented to the assembly, and if they " pass by vote to 

1 R. I. Col. Rec, II, 113. 

2 Ibid., 127. 

3 Ibid., 141, 142, 200, 288-290, 292, 293; Providence Records, III, 105, 

149, 150- 

*Laws and Acts of Her Majesties Colony of Rhode Island and 
Providence Plantations made from the First Settlement in 1636 to 
1705, S. S. and B. Rider, Providence, 1896, 35, 36. The phraseology 
but not the sense was somewhat changed in the code of 1730, Acts and 
Laws of Rhode Island, 1730, 16. 

29 






45° The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

allow them freemen of y e Colony then Shall they have their 
Vots of Electing Gener 11 Officers. " It thus came to be the 
custom for the town clerks to send lists of the new town 
freemen to the assembly at the time of the general election in 
May. As early as 1667 the assembly was compelled to 
order that no person should be admitted to the freedom of 
the corporation on election day, 1 and thereafter the admis- 
sions of freemen nearly always took place at an assembly 
session or preparatory meeting held the day before the 
election. 2 

Both the charter of 1663 an< ^ tne assembly's order of 1665 
in response to the English demands, had said that the free- 
dom of the colony might be given to those who desire it, but 
they had not implied that the colony could compel persons to 
accept the honor. Yet in 1670 the assembly impowered the 
towns to admit such freemen as they " shall judge capable 
to doe publicke service in bearing office therein ; although 
such person or persones desire not to be made a freeman or 
freemen." 3 But in establishing compulsory freemanship 
Rhode Island was not acting without precedent. Massachu- 
setts and Maryland had adopted somewhat similar orders, 
and throughout all of the colonies office-holding was com- 
pulsory ; while frequently persons properly qualified to vote 
were fined if they did not perform that duty. Thus the com- 
pulsory freemanship of Rhode Island, although different in 
name, was practically equivalent to the compulsory voting 
and office-holding in other colonies. 

From this time down to 1719 there were no further re- 
strictions on the suffrage. During all this period the towns 
could choose any of their inhabitants as freemen who pos- 
sessed " competent estates" and were of " civil conversation." 

*R. I. Col. Rec, II, 190. 

* Ibid., Ill, 311. In subsequent years this preparatory meeting was 
given up almost entirely to the acceptance of freemen and the 
appointment of committees to manage the election on the following 
day ; and on one occasion it is called an " Assembly for making 
freemen." 

'Ibid., II, 357. This is similar to the order in Providence in 1656, 
that all inhabitants, although not freemen, should be liable to be chosen 
for town service (Providence Records, II, 96). 



The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 451 

But in 1719 a religious qualification was established. In 
the code of laws drawn up in that year occur these words : 

"and that all men professing Christianity and of competent estates 
and of civil conversation who acknowledge and are obedient to the 
civil magistrate though of different judgments in Religious Affairs 
(Roman Catholicks only excepted) shall be admitted Freemen and 
shall have liberty to choose and be chosen Officers in the Colony both 
military and civil." 

The presence of the phrase, " Roman Catholicks only ex- 
cepted," has been difficult to explain, but Mr. S. S. Rider, 
in his researches,^ has placed the matter beyond a doubt. It 
is now clear that this clause was inserted into the midst of an 
earlier law by some member of the revisory committee of 
1 719. Neither the clause nor the law is to be found in the 
early legislation, although a marginal note in tne code of 
1 719 and the following ones attributes the law to the year 
1663. Mr. Rider has shown that great carelessness existed 
in ascribing the dates to the laws in the digests ; and more 
conclusively still, it is found that the clause excluding the 
Catholics does not appear in the manuscript digest of 1705. 
There can be no doubt that the clause in question was used 
for the first time in 1719 instead of 1663 as the digest states; 
and it seems probable that it was added by the committee in 
order to bring the colonial laws into supposed conformity to 
the English statutes. 1 The digest of 1719 was never ac- 
cepted by the legislature, and hence the work of the com- 
mittee has been held to have no more value than the work 
of any private persons. But in 1730 the assembly accepted 
as the law of the colony a new digest in which the clause 
against Catholics is retained; and from that time through- 
out the colonial period it was the law of the colony. The 
Rhode Island historians have succeeded in removing the 
responsibility for this religious qualification from the early 

'The English statutes 7 and 8 Wm. 3, ch. 27 and 1 Geo. 1, Statute 2, 
ch. 13, while not excluding all Catholics as such from the suffrage, yet 
provided that no person could vote for members of Parliament who 
upon the request of any candidate refused to take the oaths or affirma- 
tions of allegiance, supremacy, and the abjuration. This would lead 
to a practical disfranchisement of many, if not all, Roman Catholics. 



452 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

settlers of the colony, and placing it upon their successors, 
who, under English influence, introduced a political perse- 
cution quite foreign to the policy of the founders. 1 It must 
be admitted, however, that there were very few Roman 
Catholics in the colony and the law was practically a dead 
letter, until in 1783, when the large number of French set- 
tlers remaining after the French occupation of Newport, 
caused its repeal. 2 

The law as stated in the digests excluded not only Roman 
Catholics, but all non-Christians as well, and would thus 
have barred out Hebrews. There were some Jews in the 
colony as early as 1684, 3 and in 1763 they erected a syna- 
gogue in Newport. 4 A number of Jews were naturalized, 
and despite the laws apparently admitted to the freeman- 
ship; but in 1762 the superior court refused that privilege 
to two Hebrews on the ground that " it appears that the 
free and quiet enjoyment of the Christian religion and a 
desire of propagating the same were the principal views 
with which this colony was settled, and by a law made and 
passed in the year 1663, 5 no person who does not profess 
the Christian religion can be admitted free of this colony." ' 
The Rhode Island historian, Arnold, attributes this decision 
to the party strife then existing between the governor and 
the chief- justice; and if this be true, it is interesting to 
note that it was the same cause as that which led the New- 
York assembly to disfranchise the Jews in 1738. 

1 For the proof of the opinions above stated, see S. S. Rider's intro- 
ductions to his editions of the codes of 1705 and 1719; and An Inquiry 
Concerning the Origin of the Clause in the Laws of Rhode Island 
(1719-1783) Disfranchising Roman Catholics, by the same author, in 
Rhode Island Historical Tracts, Second Series, No. 1 ; also Walsh's 
Appeal, 427-435 ; Arnold, History of Rhode Island, II, 490-497. 

2 Arnold, Hist, of R. I., II, 497. 

*Ibid. } I, 478. 'Ibid., II, 

5 This reference by a court shows how the errors of the digest 
makers were accepted without question. 

6 Arnold, Hist, of R. I., II. 494, note. The doctrine above stated 
ignores the broad toleration advocated by Roger Williams, who seems 
to have believed in religious liberty for " papists and protestants, Jews 
and Turks" (Narragansett Club Publications, VI, 278). 



The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 453 

Turning from these religious restrictions which remained 
upon the law books from 1719 until 1783, we notice a great 
increase in the number of freemen, and an attempt there- 
after to limit the franchise by imposing a definite property 
qualification. No early figures showing the proportion of 
freemen to population have been accessible to the writer; 
but in 1708 Governor Cranston, writing to the Board of 
Trade, gives the population of the colony as 7 181, of whom 
10 1 5 were freemen in the towns. 1 This shows the remark- 
ably high proportion of one freeman to every seven in- 
habitants, and a potential voting class of the same propor- 
tion. A few years after this, the number of the annual 
admissions to the freemanship increased largely. Taking 
the ten years preceding the passage of the restrictive act 
of February, 1723-4, a count of the names of admitted 
freemen shows the total to be 841 ; but the rapid increase 
is shown by the fact that in the five years, 1714-1718 in- 
clusive, only 222 freemen were admitted; while from 1719 
to February, 1724, the number is 619. 2 Almost three times 
as many persons were admitted during the last five years 
as were received during the first five years of this decade. 
Such a growth cannot be explained by mere increase in 
population ; 3 other causes must have been at work. Since 
there was as yet no general property qualification, the towns 
could admit as freemen any persons that they thought pos- 
sessed competent estates, were civil in conversation, and 
obedient to the civil government. That the towns were in- 
terested in keeping up their number of freemen is shown 
by the action of a town meeting in Providence. In June, 
1720, a committee composed of persons taken from the 
different parts of the town was chosen to make lists " of all 
such as are Capable of being made free men and bring 

'R.I. Col. Rec, IV, 59- 

2 See the lists of admitted freemen in R. I. Col. Rec, IV, passim. 
As has already been mentioned, the admissions were usually made on 
the day before the annual election, but occasionally they took place 
at the other sessions of the assembly, and infrequently even on 
election day (R. I. Col. Rec, IV, 481, 496, 521). 

3 Arnold, Hist, of R. I., II, 77- 



454 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

there seueral Lists to the Townes next quarter meeting." l 
The committee must have rendered efficient service, for in 
the following October the general assembly admitted as 
freemen, 143 inhabitants of Providence; 2 and in the three 
and a half years from October, 1720, to the passage of the 
freeman act in February, 1723-4, almost forty per cent, of 
the freemen received were inhabitants of Providence. 1 

This industry of the towns in freeman-making, and the 
low standard set by the towns for the freemanship, com- 
bined with the increasing population, led to the enactment 
of the law of February, 1723-4, 4 " Directing the Admitting 
Freemen in the several Towns of this Colony." After the 
publication of this act 

" no Person whatsoever shall be admitted a Freeman of any Town in 
this Colony, unless the Person admitted be a Freeholder of Lands, 
Tenaments, or Hereditaments, in such Town where he shall be ad- 
mitted Free, of the Value of One Hundred Pounds, or to the value of 
Forty Shillings per Annum, or the Eldest Son of such a Freeholder: 
Any other Act, Custom or Usage, to the contrary hereof, notwith- 
standing." 

Those already free were not to forfeit their freemanship 
if they did not possess the property qualification. No con- 
dition, it will be noticed, was imposed by this act upon free- 
men of the colony, except by the indirect restrictions upon 
the town freemen. The custom which had held from the 
earliest period was not thrown aside here. 

Other interesting features are to be seen in these first 
suffrage qualifications. The English requirement of forty 
shillings as an alternative to the one hundred pounds, again 

1 Providence Records, XIII, 38. 

2 R. I. Col Rec, IV, 289. 

8 See lists of freemen, R. I. Col. Rec, IV, 289, 290, 293, 302, 309, 314, 

325, 327. 

* Acts and Laws of His Majesty s Colony of Rhode-Island, and 
Providence-Plantations (Newport, 1730), 13 1. The act appears to 
have brought about an immediate restriction of the suffrage ; for while 
618 freemen were admitted into the colony in the five years before 
the passage of the act, only 319 were given the freemanship in the 
five years following the act (see Records, passim). 



The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 455 

shows how strong was the force of this precedent. In this 
case it may have been inserted with the desire of placating 
the English government, which was evincing considerable 
dissatisfaction with the administration of affairs in Rhode 
Island, and the Board of Trade had even suggested that 
Rhode Island and Connecticut be annexed to the royal 
province of New Hampshire. 1 English precedents can also 
be found for the admission to the freemanship of the eldest 
sons of freemen, when the sons did not possess the property 
requirements. It is believed that no American precedent 
can be found for this, 2 with the possible exception of the 
hereditary semi-commercial burgherrecht of the Dutch New 
Amsterdam, which is not likely to have influenced Rhode 
Island seventy years after the English conquest of New 
Netherland. 

In England, however, we have an instance of the admis- 
sion of the sons of freemen into a chartered company, — 
which, it will be remembered, was the legal status of the 
colony of Rhode Island. The Merchant Adventurers of 
England by an ordinance of their body provided that free- 
men could be admitted, among other ways, by " patri- 
mony." Under this ordinance, a freeman's son, born after 
his father had been made " an absolute ffree and sworn 
brother," was entitled to the freedom of the company with- 
out serving an apprenticeship or paying the heavy fee ordi- 
narily imposed. 3 The feature of hereditary freemanship is 
to be found also quite generally in the English municipal 
corporations. In some cases it was granted solely to the 
eldest son or heir of a freeman, 4 in others it was given to 
the youngest son ; 5 occasionally to all the sons of f ree- 

1 Arnold, History of R. I., II, 77. 

s The somewhat similar feature in Pennsylvania was adopted in the 
constitution of 1776 (Poore, Charters and Constitutions, II, I54 2 ), 
fifty years after the passage of the Rhode Island law. 

3 W. E. Lingelbach, The Internal Organization of the Merchant Ad- 
venturers of England (Philadelphia, 1903, 9, 12). 

4 In Retford (Oldfield, English Boroughs, II, 5); Exeter (Izacke, 
Memorials of Exeter, 38, 39, 74) ; Richmond {Hist of Richmond 
[anon., 1814], 120); Hastings (Oldfield, II, 301-304); Rye (ibid., 
327S33), etc. 

5 In Durham (Oldfield, I, 244). 



456 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

men, 1 and sometimes even to those marrying the daughters 
of freemen.- From some of these English precedents the 
authors of the act of 1723-4 must have drawn their heredi- 
tary suffrage provision, which, as a political anomaly, was 
to continue in the Rhode Island community until the middle 
of the nineteenth century. 3 

While there is thus abundant English precedent for the 
hereditary feature, the property qualification in the Rb 
Island law led to a form of difficulty which England at this 
time was spared. The mother country was not afflicted with 
the paper money craze, while Rhode Island, in the genera- 
tion following the passage of the election law of 1724, 
passed through all the day dreams and disillusions of a 
cheap money epoch. The first issue of paper money, made 
in May, 1710, 4 was speedily followed by other and larger 
issues. Depreciation came as a matter of course. By 1731 
the paper was quoted at two-fifths of its value in 1710; 5 
ten years later, in consequence of very large emissions in 
the interim, its sterling value was only one-fourth the 
nominal value. 6 In 1750, it was stated that £110,000 of 
the money was worth only £10,000 sterling, 7 and this ratio 

1 This sometimes included all sons, and sometimes only those born 
after the father's admission, as in London. 

2 As in Bristol (Evans, Hist, of Bristol, II, 40) ; Ludlow (Oldfield, 
II, 39) ; Dover (ibid., II, 312), etc. 

3 The English town whose requirements for the suffrage apparently 
most closely approach those of Rhode Island is Nottingham. In that 
town the electors were all freemen, all freeholders of forty shillings 
income, the eldest sons of freemen by birth, and the youngest sons 
after having served a seven years' apprenticeship anywhere, and all 
other persons who had served a seven years' apprenticeship to freemen 
(An Essay on the Elective Franchise, Arthur Kelly, London, 1821, p. 
63; Oldfield, II, 2). Cp. English franchise, ante, 13-15. 

* Acts and Lazes of His Majesty's Colony in Rhode Island and Pr 
dence Plantations (Newport, 1745), 42, and passim for later acts; 
Some Account of the Bills of Credit or Paper Money of Rhode Island 
from the First Issue, in 17 10, to the Final Issue, 1786, by E. R. Potter 
and S. S. Rider (R. I. Historical Tracts, No. 8). 

5 R. I. Col. Rec, IV, 459- 

8 Ibid., V, 13. 

7 Ibid., 284. 



The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 457 

was accepted by the Rhode Island assembly and commented 
upon by the English House of Commons. 1 A " new tenor" 
of 1740 depreciated in the same manner. In 1756 provision 
was made for another new issue, called " lawful money," 
which was maintained at about the ratio of one and one- 
third to one pound sterling ; and this money, or English and 
Spanish coins, remained the circulating medium until the 
Revolution. 2 In the mean time, by 1764, the old tenor 
paper was quoted at twenty-three and a third for one pound 
of lawful money. 3 These few figures concerning the fluc- 
tuations in value of the paper money render intelligible the 
frequent changes in the suffrage qualifications. 

As the paper money declined in value the bars of the 
freemanship were lowered, and the assembly lagging years 
behind the depreciation, tried by legislation to maintain the 
standard fixed in 1724. 4 The first reform came in 1729-30, 
when the property qualification was changed from one hun- 
dred pounds value, or forty shillings income, to two hundred 
pounds value of freehold, or ten pounds annual income from 
land. Eldest sons of freeholders could still be admitted; 
but the provision was inserted that where the freedom of a 
town was obtained by " any fraudulent Means or Contri- 
vance," such freemanship should be void. 5 

The acts of 1724 and 1730 merely required the freeman 
to possess the proper amount of freehold at the time of his 
admission to the freemanship, without inquiring into his 
qualification at each election. This naturally led to corrup- 
tion and the defeat of the intention of the laws. By the 
preamble of a new act of 1742 6 it is charged that " many 
Persons have by Frauds and other indirect Means, procured 

1 Potter and Rider, Some Account of the Bills of Credit, 76, 84. 

2 Ibid., 95, 97-99. 

3 Ibid., 97. 

4 In only one other colony, South Carolina, has such a marked rela- 
tionship between the suffrage and the currency been found to exist, 
although wherever the property qualification was expressed in pounds 
and not in acres there must have been such an influence of the one 
upon the other. 

5 Acts and Laws of Rhode Island, 1730, 209. 

6 Ibid., 17 AS, 252. 



458 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

themselves to be made Free of this Colony, who really are 
not possessed of such Estate," as by the former acts is re- 
quired ; and many persons formerly possessing the requisite 
estates " have afterwards disposed of such their Estates, and 
yet continue to act as Freemen in this Colony, from which 
many very ill Consequences have already arisen to the 
Colony, and many more will ensue, if not timely pre- 
vented." Acting under these impulses the legislature en- 
acted that no person " shall be admitted to vote or act as a 
Freeman in any Town Meeting in this Colony, or at the 
General Election, but such only who, at the Time of such 
their voting, or acting as Freemen, are really and truly pos- 
sessed of Lands, Tenements, or Hereditaments lying in this 
Colony of the full Value of Two Hundred Pounds or Ten 
Pounds per annum, being their own Freehold Estate, or the 
eldest Son of such Freeholder." 1 Under this act and all 
subsequent ones, the freeman's rights continued only so 
long as the freeman retained those qualities which were 
thought essential to the position. If his property were 
alienated, he lost as well the freeman's prerogatives. Thus 
the freemanship, formerly a grant for life, became condi- 
tioned upon the continuous holding of land ; and in this 
respect approached more closely than ever before to the 
suffrage qualifications of the other colonies. 2 

Following the great depreciation of the currency during 
the decade beginning in 1740, the franchise prerequisite was 
still farther lowered. The assembly in the preamble to an 
act of 1 746 s says that the " manner of admitting Freemen 
in this Colony is so lax and their qualifications as to their 
estates so very low that many Persons are admitted who 
are possessed with little or no property;" and that the 
admission of such " necessitous" persons has encouraged 
evil-minded persons to practice bribery and corruption in 

1 Acts and Laws of Rhode Island, 1745, 252. Suspected persons could 
be required to take oath that they were properly qualified. 

2 There was no saving of the rights of persons already admitted, as 
had been done by the acts of 1724 and 1730; but all, old freemen and 
newly admitted ones, must conform to the freehold requirements. 

8 Acts and Laws of Rhode Island, 1752, 13; R. I. Historical Tracts, 
No. 8, 59, 60. 



The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 459 

elections, to the great scandal of the colony. To prevent 
these evils the assembly again doubled the nominal value of 
the freehold required of voters, now making it the ap- 
parently large amount of four hundred pounds, or an in- 
come of twenty pounds a year from rents. In reality, it may 
be doubted whether this amount represented as much pur- 
chasing power as the one hundred pounds required by the 
act of 1724. 

Bribery and corruption were attacked by the same assem- 
bly. An act to prevent such practices, passed in 1746, is the 
most stringent known in colonial legislation. According 
to it, 1 not only every freeman thereafter admitted, but all 
freemen already admitted, were required to take the fol- 
lowing oath or affirmation : 

" You A. B. do solemnly swear [or affirm] That you have not, and 
will not, receive any Money, or other Reward, or other Thing, by 
which you may expect any Money or future Reward, at the Election 
of any Officer to be chosen in this Colony: And that you will not 
bargain or contract with any Person, directly or indirectly, contrary 
to the true Intent and Meaning of this Oath [or Affirmation] ; but 
that you will use your Freedom for the Good of the Gov't only, with- 
out any other Motive: And this Declaration you make, without any 
Evasion, Equivocation, or mental Reservation whatsoever." 

The town clerks were directed to send annually to the gen- 
eral assembly lists of all freemen taking the oath. To dis- 
courage candidates from " using any corrupt or unlawful 
Method" to obtain offices, it was enacted that if " One single 
Vote be unlawfully obtained by such Candidate's Procure- 
ment, Knowledge or Consent," the election should " be de- 
clared utterly null and void." Suspected persons refusing 
to purge themselves under oath were to be declared guilty. 
Any one convicted of bribery was to suffer the penalty of 
perjury and also " forever thereafter be excluded from being 
a Freeman, or voting, or bearing any public Office, what- 
soever, in this Colony ; And shall also forever be rendered 
incapable of giving Evidence in any Court of Justice." 2 

1 Acts and Laws of Rhode Island, 1766, 24. 

2 Ibid. The act was repealed in 1767 (Session Laws of 1767, I.l)i 
and all persons having taken the oath were absolved therefrom as 
fully as though they had never taken it. 



460 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

The assembly records show that the provisions of the act 
were carried out, no person being permitted to vote who 
had not taken the oath, and all new freemen were compelled 
to subscribe to it. 1 We cannot but imagine that the political 
corruption had reached a state alarming to the legislators 
when they felt compelled to administer such an oath to every 
voter in the colony. 

By 1760, owing largely to the influence of the English 
government, the colonial currency was placed upon a rational 
basis, and thereafter sterling money circulated at the legal 
rate of 133 per cent. 2 Again the change in the money 
system demanded a restatement of the suffrage qualifica- 
tions, for under the " lawful money" acts, the four hundred 
pounds requirement would be exorbitant. Accordingly, in 
1760, the assembly enacted that for the future no person 
should 

" vote and act as a freeman in any case, whatsoever, but such only, 
who at the time of voting, shall be truly and really possessed of land 
or real estate, to be valued and determined agreeably to the former 
laws, of the full value of £40, lawful money, or that will rent yearly 
for forty shillings, lawful money, or the eldest son of such a free- 



The same qualifications were embodied in the comprehensive 
election law of 1762, 4 and in the still more elaborate provi- 
sions of the Digest of 1767. 5 

We are told, in the preamble of the act of 1 762, 6 that the 
charter right of the colony to elect their officers " is One of 
the noblest Privileges a People can enjoy;" and it " is of 
the greatest Importance" that the elections be impartial, and 
all precautions be taken to prevent collusive practices, par- 
ticularly since some towns have admitted persons as free- 
men who were not qualified by the laws of the colony. The 

1 See R. I. Col. Rec., V, 213, 487; VI, 43, 140, 201, 246. 

2 This " lawful money" of Rhode Island was equivalent to " procla- 
mation money" in other colonies. 

3 R. I. Col. Rec, VI, 257. 

* Session Laws of 1762; R. I. Col. Rec., VI, 322, 323, 343. 
6 Acts and Lazvs of Rhode Island, 1767, 78 ff. 
6 Session Laws of 1762. 



The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 461 

new legislation impowered the towns to admit as freemen 
such of their inhabitants as were qualified according to the 
terms of the act, 1 and required the town clerk to certify the 
names of the freemen annually to the assembly. Those " so 
returned and admitted Freemen of the Colony shall be en- 
rolled in the Colony's Book." The freehold qualification, 
now containing minor clauses to prevent fraud, is as follows : 

."And be it further Enacted . . . That no person whosoever shall 
be permitted to vote, or act as a Freeman in any Town-Meeting in 
this Colony, but such only who are Inhabitants therein, & who, at the 
Time of such their voting & acting, are really & truly possessed, in 
their own proper Right, of a Real Estate, within this Colony, to the 
full Value of Forty Pounds or which shall rent for Forty Shillings 
per Annum, being an Estate of Fee-simple, Fee-tail, or an Estate in 
Reversion, which qualifies no other person to be a Freeman, or at 
least an Estate for a Person's own Life, or the eldest Son of such a 
Freeholder. And that no Estate of a less Quality shall entitle any 
Person to the Freedom of this Colony." 2 

A person who had previously obtained admission by virtue 
of his wife's dower, or by virtue of rented lands, or in other 
irregular ways, was to forfeit his freemanship at once. All 
persons, excepting the eldest sons of qualified freeholders, 
were to be propounded for three months before the respective 
towns, and the evidence of their qualification must be pro- 
duced in open town meeting. 3 Suspected persons might be 
challenged in town meeting and compelled to take oath that 
they were properly qualified, and thereafter they could not 
vote until they had satisfied the town as to their qualifica- 
tions. Persons convicted of executing or receiving any 
fraudulent deeds were " to be utterly incapable, forever, 
thereafter of sustaining any Office, or of voting for any Offi- 
cer, in this Colony." The qualifications imposed by these acts 
were to be enforced upon all voters for town deputies in the 
assembly and for town officers, as well as for general offi- 
cers. Inhabitants might be admitted as freemen and given a 
vote for general officers in the towns where they resided, if 

1 Digest of 1767, 78, 79. 
'Ibid. 

3 Ibid. 



462 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonics. 

they owned sufficient land in any part of the colony, and 
brought satisfactory proof of the same to the town clerk. 
Apparently a man voted where he resided, instead of where 
his land lay, as was the case in the central and southern colo- 
nies. The right of the eldest son to vote did not go to the 
second son upon the death of the first, unless the latter had 
died without issue. 1 A fine of twenty pounds was to be in- 
flicted upon an unqualified person who voted unlawfully, or 
upon a freeman who voted more than once at the same elec- 
tion. 2 

With the repeal of the oath against bribery in 1767 3 the 
last change was made in the suffrage qualifications during 
the colonial period. Beginning with complete control by 
the towns of the freeman qualifications, we have noticed first 
the influence of the English commissioners in securing the 
passage of the general provision for competent estates and 
civil conversation. About fifty years later came the insertion 
of clauses in the statute books which excluded Jews and 
Catholics from the freemanship. The policy of restricting 
the franchise to those owning a definite amount of real estate 
began in 1724 with the sum of £100, or forty shillings in- 
come; and this was subsequently raised to £200 and £400 
as the value of money depreciated. The return of sound 
money compelled the restoration of a smaller qualification, 
which in 1760 was fixed at £40, or an income of forty shil- 
lings from land. In 1746, and for about twenty years there- 
after, a most stringent oath against bribery was required 
from all freemen. Throughout the period the qualifications 
are said to be imposed upon town freemen ; who, after satis- 
fying the town meeting and being accepted thereby, were 
proposed to the assembly for admission to the colonial free- 
dom. Only one instance has been noticed in the later years 
where the assembly refused to accept as freemen of the 
colony those proposed by the towns. 4 The later legislation 

1 Digest of 1767, 78, 79. 

* In the latter case the offender was also to be disfranchised for 
three years. Such a punishment had first been adopted in 1736 (Digest 
of 1745, 193). 

8 Session Laws of 1767, II. 

4 R. I. Col. Rec, VI, 323. 



The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 463 

is distinguished for as elaborate provisions concerning free- 
manship, the suffrage and elections as will be found in any 
other colony. 

Turning now from the qualifications of voters to the man- 
ner in which the suffrage was exercised, we must glance at 
some of the features of the proxy system which was an in- 
tegral part of the Rhode Island election laws. In this sys- 
tem the observer always finds a valuable link between pure 
democracy and our modern representative and ballot meth- 
ods, and it has been deemed best, therefore, to collect the 
evidence respecting this Rhode Island custom. 

Newport, apparently, pointed the way for such a system, 
when, as early as January, 1639-40, the town ordered that 
elections should be held annually by the " greater part of the 
Bodie of Freemen, then or ther present," and gave permis- 
sion to " such as shall be necessarily detained to send in their 
votes, sealed up to the Judge." 1 The assembly of 1647, tne 
first to meet under the charter of 1644, and composed of all 
the freemen, permitted those who wished to do so to retire, 
but required them to leave their votes behind them. 2 The 
same assembly in almost the exact words of the Newport 
order of 1640 made the proxy system a permanent part of 
the colonial elections. 3 

In the face of the uncertainty as to whether the charter of 
1663 required all freemen to attend personally or still per- 
mitted the use of proxies, or required all elections to be by 
the representative assembly, the first election under the char- 
ter was held in May, 1664, by the freemen " personally there 
present," 4 without the admission of proxy votes. But this 
assembly " seriously considered" the inconvenience of com- 
pelling the freemen of remote towns to come to Newport to 
vote, and referred the matter to the assembly meeting in 
October, 1664. 5 At the latter meeting 6 the following order 
was then adopted : 

1 R. I. Col. Rec, I, 98. 
% lbid., 151. 
8 Ibid., 149. 

VMd.,11,29. * Ibid., 39. 

'Ibid., 62. They had the " helpfull presance" of John Clark, the 
agent who was instrumental in securing the charter. 






464 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

" That the liberty and priviledge of electing and being elected vnto 
all publicke offices in this Collony, shall continue in the whole body 
or company of the freemen by ther parsonall and individuall votting; 
and whereas, it hath ben often vrged the difficulty . . . parsonall 
voting at Newport this presant Assembly ordaynes, that voting by 
proxces be enjoyed by all the freemen of this Collony, and that each 
freeman desiering to vote by proxces shall subscribe ther names on 
the outside, and deliver his votes sealed vp into the hands of a magis- 
trate, in the face of a town meeting . . . ; and in case of sickness 
and nescecary absence from the sayd towne meetinge, vnto a magis- 
trate, who shall deliver the sayd votes or cause them to be delivered 
into the hands of the Governor, or in his absence, of the deputy Gov- 
ernor, in the face of the Court of Election; . . . provided, that this 
order shall noe way prejudice or discorradge any who desier to be 
parsonally presant. . . . M1 

By an order of 1666, it appears that not only the ahsentees 
but also those personally present at the election in Newport 
were to vote by means of " wrighten Votes." 2 The use of 
a written tablet was thereafter required of all voters in the 
colonial elections. 

It is evident that from 1664 3 tne proxy system of Rhode 
Island was nothing more than a method of collecting ballots 
in elections. The true proxy was a temporary grant of 
power by an absentee freeman to another who was attendant 
upon the assembly. Such forms of proxies are found in the 
assembly of 1647 and perhaps some of the later pure demo- 
cratic meetings, but they disappear altogether after 1664. 
What the Rhode Island assembly called a proxy was simply 
a written ballot sent by a freeman who did not in person 
attend the general election. For over a century of the col- 
ony's history the freeman was privileged to attend the elec- 
tion in person and hand in an unsigned ballot, or he could 
give in his ballot, properly signed, at a town meeting before 
the general election, or, if detained by sickness, to some mag- 

1 R. I. Col. Rec, II, 62. 

2 Rider's edition of MS. Code of 1705, 35, 36. 

3 There can be no doubt that voting by ballot at the general elections 
existed before 1666. As early as 1647 those whom the " major part 
of the General Assembly pitcheth upon by paper" were to be accounted 
elected (R. I. Col. Rec, I, 191). 



The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 465 

istrate; and the actual ballots thus received were " sealed up 
in a Packet," 1 sent to the officers of the colony and opened in 
their presence at the general election in Newport. 2 

By the year 171 5 the inevitable election evils had crept into 
the ballot system. " Loose and fractious freemen" were 
found " putting or delivering into the hat sometimes two, 
three or more votes for one officer." 3 The assembly, " for 
the preventing said clandestine proceedings for the future," 
ordered that " every freeman admitted to vote, shall write 
his name at length on the back side of his vote, and all proxy 
votes shall have the same." 4 But the signing of ballots in 
this way did not prove popular. The next assembly found 
that it " hath given great dissatisfaction and uneasiness to 
many of the good people of this colony, who deem it a very 
great hardship to have their names exposed upon such oc- 
casions, to the creating of animosity and heart-burning of 
their particular friends, etc." 5 Accordingly, that part of the 
former act which required the voters present at the election 
to write their names upon their ballots was repealed. All 
proxy votes, however, were to be signed according to the 
former custom. 6 For a number of years after this, no ma- 
terial change appears in the method of balloting. Irregular 
proxies were sometimes thrown out by wholesale ; 7 and in 
1743-4 it was stated that " no Person Proxing at said Meet- 

*R. I. Col. Rec, IV, 208. 

2 We have abundant evidence to show that these two forms of voting 
were carried out. Thus on May 4, 1669, the day before the election, 
the assembly appointed two persons " to write the names of such as 
come to vote tomorrow, being the day of Election;" two others were 
"to receive the votes from such as vote and deliver them fayre [fair] 
into the hat on the table ;" and two others " are to assist for the open- 
ing of the proxes" {ibid., II, 242). In 1673 the proxies were divided 
into four parts and as many committees appointed "to open and putt 
in the votes as called for into the hat" {ibid., II, 484)- 

* Ibid., IV, 195. 

*Ibid. A fine not exceeding five pounds, or corporal punishment 
not greater than twenty-one stripes on the bare back, were to be in- 
flicted upon non-freemen who voted at general or town elections, and 
upon freemen who cast more than one vote* for any officer. 

'Ibid., IV, 207. « Ibid., 208. 

7 Ibid., 469, 507 ; Arnold, History of R. L, II, 239. 

30 



466 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

ing shall have Liberty of withdrawing his Proxy at the Gen- 
eral Election," ' a right which may previously have been 
claimed. 

In the meantime the custom of appearing personally at the 
elections at Newport had grown less popular. By 1760 we 
learn that the casting of proxy votes at the town meetings 
was " the ancient and laudable custom of most of the pru- 
dent freemen ;" 2 and in that year the personal appearand 
freemen at Newport for the purpose of casting their votes 
was prohibited to all except members of the assembly. 3 The 
reasons for abolishing this unique feature of the elections are 
given in the preamble to the act of August 18, 1760. The 
presence of the freemen at the election is said to have been 
" very injurious to the interest and public weal of the col- 
ony." It further occasioned " a very great loss of people's 
time, at a season of the year when their labor is abundantly 
necessary for preparing the ground and planting the seed, on 
which the produce of the whole summer must depend." The 
act directed that " every freeman, who is disposed to give his 
suffrage for the election of general officers," should do so 
by handing in a proxy vote at a town meeting on the third 
Wednesday of April preceding the election. 4 

Thus the picturesque gathering of the freemen at New- 
port, meeting perhaps in a kitchen 5 or in a Quaker meeting 
house, 6 and each man individually putting his ballot into the 
hat on the table, was discontinued. The custom had orig- 
inated under the early charter, and was retained under that 
of 1663 because it was thought the charter required a general 
meeting of the freemen for elective purposes; 7 but by 1760 
the assembly evidently thought they would incur no danger 

1 Acts and Laws of Rhode Island, 1745, 287. 

2 R. I. Col Rec, VI, 256. 

3 Ibid., 256, 257. 'Ibid. 

6 Ibid., II, 541. " Ibid., IV, 569. 

7 Bellomont, writing to England in 1699 concerning irregularities in 
Rhode Island, said, " Their Election of Generall Officers is partly made 
by proxies, and allowed of by an Act of the government, contrary to 
the rules of their Charter in that respect ; which prescribes that the 
Elections be made by such greater part of the Company as shall be 
present at the Generall Assembly" (R. I. Col. Rec, III, 386). 



The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 467 

of forfeiting the charter by adopting a more convenient 
method of holding elections. On the other hand, the method 
of sending the actual ballots (proxies) from the several 
towns to Newport to be counted, was still continued. 1 

We must now notice what other forms of the suffrage ex- 
isted than that for the general colonial officers. There were 
several types of elections in which the suffrage included per- 
sons who were not freemen of the colony. The most impor- 
tant of such elections were those held in the towns for depu- 
ties and for town officers. There are also meetings and 
elections among the groups of land proprietors which existed 
in almost all the towns ; and finally, the militia franchise was 
considerably wider than that of the town or colony. 

THe suffrage in the towns was vested in those inhabitants 
who had bee/i admitted by the town meeting as freemen. 
Some comment has been made concerning the early restric- 
tions imposed by the towns; and the legislation by the as- 
sembly upon the subject has been reviewed at length. The 
several property qualifications were in each case placed by the 
assembly upon those admitted to the town freemanship, and 
not directly upon the freemen of the colony. Hence the qual- 
ifications already mentioned are those required of town free- 
men, varying as we have seen from one hundred to four 
hundred pounds and back again to forty. In addition to 
these compulsory qualifications, the towns in the early period 
had wide liberty in the admission and rejection of inhabi- 
tants, and by this means could impose other qualifications. 2 

*By the act of 1762 (Session Laws) and the Digest of 1767 (83, 84), 
the freemen were required to hand their proxies " one by one, in their 
own proper Persons'' to the moderator of the town meeting, and the 
clerk must keep a record of all persons voting and send the list to the 
assembly. 

2 In 1682 town councils were authorized to require a bond from new- 
comers (R. I. Col. Rec, III, 117)- In 1728, because persons of a 
"flexible Disposition" might tender bonds for "profligate Persons," 
the town councils were empowered to accept such bond or not as they 
saw fit; and if they refused to accept it, the person in question was 
to be conveyed out of the town (Acts and Laws of R. L, I73°> W 
act of Feb., 1727-8). See Providence Records, VI, 151, for instance 
of refusal to admit an inhabitant. 



468 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

But by 1766 and perhaps before that time, the town could 
not refuse to recognize as an inhabitant any one (a) who 
had resided in the town for one year and had not been 
warned to depart; (b) who had purchased a freehold of the 
value of forty pounds in the town; or (c) who was an ap- 
prentice and had served out his time in the town. 1 By these 
provisions the town must accept as an inhabitant any one 
who had purchased land sufficient to qualify him for the 
freemanship. Whether they could refuse to accept him as a 
town freeman and thus prevent his gaining the colony f 
dom as well, does not appear on the face of the records 
the laws. By this date, however, it is believed that there 
little discretion exercised by the towns. 2 

The only difference, then, between the town suffrage and 
that of the colony was in the action taken by the general as- 
sembly upon the name of the town freeman. After the ad- 
mission of a freeman to the town, the town clerk was re- 
quired by law to send the new freeman's name to the general 
assembly, to be acted upon by them for the colonial freeman- 
ship ; and the latter was granted, so far as the records show, 
as a matter of course. Thus the man would be a freeman of 
a town only a few months or at most a year before he would 
obtain the colonial franchise. For our purposes the 
classes may be taken as identical. 3 

1 Acts and Laws of Rhode Island, 1767, 228 ff. 

2 This is supported by the word "shall" in the Digest of 1767 (p. 
78) : " Be it Enacted . . . That the Freemen of each respective Town 
in this Colony, at their Town Meeting Days, shall, and they hereby 
have full Power granted them to admit so many Persons, Inhabitants 
of their respective Towns, Freemen of their Towns, as shall be qualified 
according to this Act." 

3 That they were not absolutely so in practice is shown by the 
express statement that town deputies to the assembly were to be 
elected by the freemen of the towns, and not merely by freemen of 
the colony (R. I. Col. Rec, IV, 338). But this provision was probably 
made in order that newly elected freemen of the towns might have 
a voice in the election of assemblymen. The same care is shown in 
the permission that new town freemen may vote for all general 
officers, and if the general assembly admit them as colony freemen the 
votes were to be counted ; if not admitted, the votes were declared 
void {Acts and Laws of R. I., 1767, 78-87). 



The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 469 

Within the towns there soon arose a more exclusive group 
than that made up of the freemen. We have noticed how in 
the early days a person accepted by a town as a freeman was 
usually entitled to share in the town lands upon an equal 
plane with the first proprietors. 1 But other inhabitants or 
small freeholders entered the settlement, and might purchase 
or receive grants of land without any interest in the undi- 
vided portions of the town. Thus about the early "pur- 
chasers" or " proprietors" there grew up a large class who 
did not share their rights. 

The town records of Providence show admirably the grad- 
ual separation of these two classes. In the earliest period 
land matters were discussed in the general town meeting ; 2 
but about 1661 the majority of the "purchasers" ordered 
that requests to the town forlands should be referred to the 
purchasers for acceptance or refusal. 3 Thereafter frequent 
references are made to " purchasers meetings." 4 The rec- 
ords of their meetings are still kept in the town book, their 
meetings and elections are held on the same days as the town 
meetings and elections, 5 but care is taken that the acts be 
recorded as performed by the purchasers. After 1706 no 
further records of the purchasers are included in the town 
books, and by 171 5 the town and the purchasers form two 
distinct bodies which are compelled to appoint committees to 
settle differences with one another. 6 The rights of purchas- 
ers could be alienated and devised or inherited. 7 A final 
land division among the Providence " purchasers" took place 
in 1 719, in which one hundred and one persons participated. 8 

1 See ante, 434-436. 
* Providence Records, I, II, passim. 

3 Ibid., Ill, 10. The record is badly mutilated and lacks date, but fol- 
lows an item dated 1661. 
'Ibid., Ill, 11 ; IV, 36; IX, 9, 12, 18, etc. 
*Ibid. } IX, 18, 19, 23, 34, 49, 90, 91, 102-108. 
>Ibid.,XI, 178. 

7 Ibid., Ill, 157; VIII, 69. In Providence there was also a group 
of purchasers who received only twenty-five acres, who may have been 
entitled to only one-fourth of a vote in proprietors' meetings (ibid., 
II, 74, 125, 127; IV, 36; VIII, 154). See Chapter VII for similar case 
on Long Island. 

8 Arnold, History of R. I., I, 121. 



470 The Suffrage Franchise in t/ie English Colonies 






Far broader than any other form of suffrage in the colony 
was that granted for the militia elections, which for many 
years was vested in all the soldiers of the " train bands." 
The custom was evidently brought from Massachusetts by 
the Newport settlers, who, as early as 1639, directed the train 
band to choose their own officers. 1 In the code of 1647 
under the charter of 1644 tne militia officers were to be 
chosen by the " inhabitants" of the several towns from 
among themselves. 2 The same method was retained under 
the new charter of 1663. 3 

When the office of major was erected in 1677, that officer 
was to be elected as follows : " every soldier listed and ap- 
pearinge in armes on the traininge day in March, appointed 
by law in his or their respective towne or place in the Collonv, 
shall have free liberty to vote in writinge for one person to 
be Major for the ensuinge year." 4 Under this law, as under 
the early laws of other colonies, the right of suffrage for 
military officers and the duty of serving in the militia went 
together. If a person were compelled to serve in the band, 
although only a boy of sixteen or an indentured servant, he 
had a right to vote for the military officers. 

Such popular elections 5 did not fail to meet the disap- 
proval of Bellomont in 1699, when seeking grounds of com- 
plaint against the colony ; and he called the attention of the 
English government to the fact that the commissioned offi- 
cers were elected by the soldiers, instead of being appointed 
by the assembly or the governor and assistants as the charter 
enjoined. 6 Perhaps it was this report which led the assem- 

1 R. I. Col. Rec, 1,93- 

'Ibid.,!, 153. 'Ibid., II, 52, 568. 

* Ibid., 11,587. The actual ballots were to be delivered to the general 
assembly as in the case of proxies for general officers. The listed 
soldiers included all male persons between the ages of sixteen and 
sixty years, including servants, and excluding some few persons hold- 
ing important political or economic positions. 

8 Ibid., 386. 

6 Later it was seen that these orders excluded old men — " ancient 
freemen" — who, being over sixty years of age, were exempt from 
military training; and consequently the elections of major for the 
future were ordered to be by the freemen and the train bands (R. /. 
Col. Rcc, III, 9. n8). 



The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 471 

bly, by 1705, to perceive " the great inconveniences and dis- 
honor it brings to the Collony in admitting the listed sol- 
diery" to a vote in the choice of officers, and to realize that 
the votes of " transient persons and many youth of small 
consideration" led to the choice of officers who were " not 
honorable to her Majesty nor capable of serving" in the 
offices to which they were elected. 1 At any rate the suffrage 
in such elections was thereafter to be limited to the freemen 
of the towns or colony. Only a year afterwards, however, 
the old elections by all the soldiers were restored. 2 

But in 1 71 3 Bellomont's interpretation of their charter 
was accepted and provision was made for the annual election 
of militia officers by the assembly. 3 Again, in 1726, the elec- 
tions were ordered to be held by the soldiers and freemen of 
the towns. 4 In fifteen years this policy had been found to be 
" vastly prejudicial" to the colony, and in 1 740-1 the selec- 
tion of the military officers was permanently vested in the 
assembly, the governor retaining his right to commission the 
officers. 5 

We may conclude this section by summing up what few 
facts have been found concerning the size of the freeman 
class in Rhode Island. In the early years the freemen corre- 
sponded closely in number to the free male inhabitants, al- 
though almost from the first there were some inhabitants not 
enjoying freemen's rights. Yet we are told that in 1677 the 
inhabitants were " generally freemen." 6 The comparatively 
high proportion of one freeman to every seven of the popu- 
lation in 1708 has already been noted; 7 but in 171 3 the 
assembly thought the non-freeman inhabitants so numerous 
that the militia elections should be taken from them. 8 The 

1 Rider, MS. Code of 1705, n6; R. L Col. Rec, III, 534- 

2 Ibid., Ill, 563. 

'Ibid.,lV, 155; Acts and Laws of R. L, 1730, oo-99- 
*R. I. Col. Rec, IV, 377- 
5 Ibid., V, 1. 
*Ibid.,IV,iS$. 

T IWrf.,59. 

'Ibid., 155. 



472 The Suffrage Franchise in tlie English Colonics 






act for dividing the town of Providence, passed in 1759, 1 
stated that there were four hundred freemen in the town, 
which, estimating the population at between thirty-five hun- 
dred and four thousand, would give about one freeman to 
every nine or ten of the population ; 2 and perhaps the same 
proportion would be found in Newport. 3 While these figures 
are mere approximations, yet nearly the same proportion, 
that is, one freeman to eleven of the population, was found 
in the State at the time of the adoption of the national con- 
stitution. 4 The permanent freehold qualification must have 
excluded a larger portion of the population as the town popu- 
lation increased in size. The change in the size of the free- 
man class from one-seventh in 1708 to one-eleventh in 1788 
shows that the suffrage was becoming more limited as the 
population increased in density ; but in spite of this fact the 
freehold requisite was retained until the time of the Dorr 
Rebellion. 

1 R. I. Col Rec, VI, 194. 

2 In 1749 Providence had a white population of 3177 ; in the inter- 
vening ten years this must have increased to nearly 4000 (R. I. Col. 
Rec, V, 270). 

3 R. I. Col. Rec, V, 54, 270. 

4 Arnold, History of R. I., II, 496, 543, 558. 



CHAPTER XV. 

Conclusion. 

The main purpose of this work, that of sketching the suf- 
frage conditions in each of the thirteen colonies, has now 
been accomplished. Yet the study would not be complete 
without at least a short summary of the facts found in the 
several colonies, a statement of the nature and extent of Eng- 
lish influence upon the suffrage franchise in the colonies; 
and, finally, an estimate with respect to the size of the voting 
class in the colonies previous to the American Revolution. 

/ In the elections for the colonial legislatures there were re- 
strictions imposed upon voters in respect to sex, age, race and 
nationality, religion, good character, residence, property, 
freemanship in corporations, and certain qualifications akin 
to the borough franchise in England. Some generalizations 
will be made concerning each of these qualifications, but no 
effort will be made to give specific references either to the 
preceding pages or to the individual statutes. 1 

i. Sex. The restriction of political rights to the male sex 
was universal in the colonies, and the arduous duties of 
home-life prevented even that indirect social influence of 
woman upon politics which was frequently seen in English 
elections of the time. Lady Moody on Long Island and Mrs. 
Margaret Brent in Maryland remain the only women who 
are shown by the records to possess even a desire for political 
privileges. Usually the practice of male suffrage was so 
strong that it was not thought necessary directly to exclude 
women, as was done in the Virginia act of 1699. But South 
Carolina, Georgia and Delaware had positive restrictions of 
the franchise to the male sex ; the pronoun he is frequently 

"The reader is referred to the subject titles in the index for a com- 
plete topical analysis. No effort is here made to duplicate or parallel 
the scholarly summary of suffrage requisites as given in Bishop, 
History of Elections in the American Colonies, 46-9?- 

473 



474 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

applied to voters in other colonies; and the word freeman 
applied to electors in many colonies would exclude women. 

2. Age. The adoption of the legal age of twenty-one 
years was almost as universal as was male suffrage. In 
only two colonies, New Jersey and Maryland, is it lacking 
from the election laws, and there is no doubt that it was en- 
forced in those colonies. There were, however, several 
instances in which the age of voters differed from the com- 
mon English requirement. Massachusetts as early as 1647 
required non-freemen who were chosen to participate in local 
government to have attained the age of twenty-four years; 
between 1664 an d 1686 the same age was required of non- 
church-members who were admitted to the freedom of the 
colony; and the twenty-four years' provision was incor- 
porated into the short-lived Cutt code of New Hampshire as 
a requirement for all voters. In the New England militia 
elections, on the other hand, the voting age was less than 
twenty-one years, for usually all the soldiers or all those re- 
quired to equip themselves with arms were permitted to share 
in the choice of militia officers; and as the trained bands 
included nearly all males over sixteen years of age, it is 
probable that some under twenty-one years voted in these 
elections. Plymouth, late in her history, set a new age re- 
quirement of twenty years for voters in militia elections. 
Aside from these few exceptions, it is believed that elections 
were never legally open to persons under the age of twenty- 
one years. 

3. Race and Nationality. A racial distinction arose nat- 
urally in the colonies possessing a large negro slave popula- 
tion. Apparently the first law upon the subject is that of 
North Carolina of 171 5 which excluded negroes, mulattoes 
and Indians from the franchise. In 17 16 South Carolina 
inserted the word " white" into her election law ; while 
Virginia adopted the phraseology of North Carolina in 
1723, and Georgia followed with the word " white" in 
1 76 1. The North Carolina statute was repealed in 1734-5 
and the racial restriction does not again appear during the 
colonial period. 

At English common law no foreigner could exercise politi- 
cal rights in England, and this general principle was ex- 



Conclusion. 475 

tended to the colonies, where the only noteworthy infringe- 
ment upon it is to be found in the position of the Huguenots 
in South Carolina before 1696-7. Foreigners, when they 
received a citizen's rights, obtained it either by treaty right, 1 
by special act of a colonial legislature, 2 or under the terms of 
general laws passed for that purpose. After the year 1740 an 
act of parliament forbade the naturalization of any Catholic 
aliens in the colonies, a policy which New York and Massa- 
chusetts had anticipated by twenty-five and ten years respect- 
ively. In a few cases, 3 there was an explicit' exclusion of 
aliens from elections or office-holding ; but this was unusual, 
and the force of English precedent was generally the only bar 
between the foreigner and the franchise. 

4. Religion and Good Character. Religious qualifications, 
as is well known, were more exclusive and more rigidly en- 
forced in New England than in any of the other colonies. 
Massachusetts from 1631 until 1664 required all freemen to 
be church-members, and after that date, while membership 
in the church was not required of persons who possessed cer- 
tain other qualifications, yet even the few freemen who were 
admitted under the terms of the law of 1664 were compelled 
to bring certificates from the ministers of their towns that 
they were orthodox in religious belief. The New Haven 
freemen must be members of some approved church in New 
England ; Plymouth disfranchised those who set up churches 
without the approbation of the authorities; and even Con- 
necticut in practice, if not in law, appears to have enforced 
religious conformity. 

Besides this general exclusion in New England of those 
who did not belong to the established churches, there were 
particular sects upon whom were visited, not in New England 
alone, the pains of disfranchisement. In the middle of the 
seventeenth century the Quakers were outlawed in all the 
colonies from Virginia to Massachusetts with the exception 
of Rhode Island, and Baptists had but little more leniency 

*As the Dutch and Swedes within the Duke of York's patent. 

2 As early as 1666 in Maryland, Archives, Acts, 1666-76, 144, 205, 270- 
272, 330, 400, 460. 

•North Carolina, 1715; Pennsylvania, 1694; Delaware, 1734; New 
Hampshire, 1680. 



476 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

shown to them. But the sect which received the most liberal 
share of political persecution was the Roman Catholic. The 
colonial attitude, outside of New England, where it was 
always hostile, varied with the changes in English politics. 
The English commonwealth movement led to the disfran- 
chisement of Catholics in Maryland, and a similar but short- 
lived result appeared in Maryland and New York after the 
Revolution of 1688. In New Hampshire in 1680 the fran- 
chise was distinctly limited to Protestants, but this was in 
force only two years. In 1699 Virginia permanently dis- 
franchised " recusant convicts," and two years later New 
York excluded Catholics from elections. In 1718 Maryland, 
and in 17 19 Rhode Island took similar action, while not until 
1759 did South Carolina limit her voters to those professing 
the Protestant faith. 

Jews were disfranchised almost as frequently as Catholics. 
In 1682 the first Pennsylvania assembly restricted political 
privileges to those who believed in " Jesus Christ the Son of 
God and Saviour of the World"; between 171 6 and 1759 
South Carolina required voters to be Christians, and Prot- 
estants after the latter date. New York in 1737, by resolu- 
tion of the assembly, disfranchised Jews, and Rhode Island 
in 1 71 9 limited the suffrage to Protestant Christians. 

Good character qualifications, like the religious require- 
ment, were most common in New England. Connecticut, in 
1657, 1659 and 1662 required candidates for the freemanship 
to be of "peaceable ancf honest conversation;" Massachu- 
setts, in 1664, required non-church-members applying for the 
freemanship to be " not vicious in life; " Plymouth, in 1658, 
disfranchised lyers, drunkards, swearers and those refusing 
to take the oath of fidelity to the government. Rhode Island's 
" civil conversation" and " obedience to the civil magistrate" 
were taken from the instructions to the king's commissioners 
of 1664, and, in turn, were adopted in part by Plymouth in 
1669; while New Hampshire, in 1680, copied the good char- 
acter clause of the Massachusetts law. A somewhat similar 
feature is to be found in the Rhode Island compulsory oath 
administered to all freemen between 1746 and 1767, that 
they would use no bribery or dishonest methods in elections. 
Outside of New England the good character provisions are 



Conclusion. 477 

unusual. We may note the clause in Penn's Laws Made in 
England which excluded persons convicted of ill-fame or of 
unsober and dishonest conversation ; and the Virginia act of 
1762 which excluded from the colonial franchise freeholders 
who were convicts during the time for which they were 
transported. 

5. Residence. In New England, owing to the close life of 
the towns and to the early and numerous restrictions upon 
the reception of inhabitants into the towns, there is rarely any 
formal term of residence required for freemen. Practically 
no one could gain a residence without the consent of the 
town; and in some cases, as in Plymouth particularly and 
in Massachusetts, the consent of the colonial authorities was 
also required before one could settle in a town. To the south- 
ward of New England, where the personal sifting process 
of the New England town life did not exist, it was more 
necessary that a term of residence for voters be established 
by law. And yet this did not come very early and in some 
cases it was never adopted. Thus in Maryland, in 1642, we 
learn that neither the holding of land nor the possession of 
a definite place of residence was required, and the same tol- 
erant spirit is seen in the Carolinas and Virginia. After this 
early laxity residence restrictions were gradually adopted. 
In Virginia and the Carolinas there is an effort to limit the 
suffrage to housekeepers, but this soon gives place to other 
qualifications, such as freeholding or tax-paying, which 
imply a residence in the colony or an evident interest in its 
concerns. By the Revolutionary days a residence within the 
county was required of those voting in Maryland under the 
personal property qualification ; in North Carolina the voter 
must have resided six months in the province ; in South Car- 
olina, after an early requirement of only three months' resi- 
dence, the term was permanently fixed, in 1721, at one year, 
and Georgia followed North Carolina with a six months' 
provision. Pennsylvania and Delaware compelled the voter 
to reside two years in the province ; New Jersey required a 
year's residence in the county, city or town where the elector 
voted; while New York was content with a simple require- 
ment that a freeholder must have held his land three months 
before the election at which he offered to vote. Virginia, 



478 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

New York and New Hampshire, apparently, had no definite 
residence qualifications. 

6. Property Qualifications. During the seventeenth cen- 
tury some property qualification upon voters was implied in 
the laws and customs of many of the colonies, and in the 
eighteenth century such a requirement was universal. Prop- 
erty qualifications, for our purposes, may be divided into {a) 
those which do not state the form of property required ; (b) 
those v/hich limit the necessary property to freehold alone: 
(c) those which give an alternative between a real and a per- 
sonal property minimum, and (d) those establishing a tax- 
paying requisite for voters. Instances of each of these can 
be found during the colonial period. 

A. Of the indefinite property qualifications, perhaps the 
most general was that in force in Rhode Island between 1665 
and 1723, which, adopting the language of the king's letter 
to the New England colonies, required all freemen to be per- 
sons of " competent estates." More specific, but still vague, 
are the South Carolina laws of 1692 and 1716 requiring the 
voter " to be worth" ten pounds or thirty pounds respect- 
ively; and of a similar nature is the thirty pounds estate in 
Connecticut in 1657. More definiteness was gained by the 
requirement that the property be taxable; as in the twenty 
pounds of rateable estate in Plymouth in 1669 and in New 
Hampshire in 1680, and the Connecticut twenty pounds as- 
sessment of 1662. 

B. Where freeholdership was a requisite for the suffrage, 
there might be no minimum size or value of the freehold, as 
in Virginia from 1676 to 1736, in West Jersey after 1682, or 
New Hampshire from 1682 to 1699. But this early exten- 
sion of the franchise to all freeholders without respect to the 
size or value of the real estate soon gave place to a less lib- 
eral policy. The minimum freehold was measured in one of 
three ways; either by the English custom of requiring a 
definite income from land, or by fixing a certain value of 
freehold, or a certain size in acres or town lots. The first of 
these tests, in the form of a forty-shilling income from free- 
hold estate, was in force in New York from 1683 to J ^99; 
in New Hampshire from 1699 to 1727; in Massachusetts 
after 1691, and Connecticut after 1689, but in the last two 



Conclusion. 479 

cases some other alternative was permissible; and it was 
part of the qualifications of Rhode Island between 1723 and 
• 1730, and after 1760. Thus all the New England colonies 
possessed the English standard of freehold, and in two of 
them, the forty shillings, translated into dollars, was main- 
tained well into the nineteenth century. 

In other cases the freehold possessed by the voter must be 
of a certain value. This was true in New York after 1699, 
where the freehold must be of the value of forty pounds, and 
of New Hampshire after 1728, where it was ten pounds 
greater than in New York. In Rhode Island in 1723 the ' 
freehold must be of the value of one hundred pounds or yield 
an income of forty shillings ; in 1 730, owing to the deprecia- 
tion in the paper currency, this was changed' to two hundred t C 
pounds, or ten pounds income, and again in 1746 both of If C & 
these figures were doubled. After 1760 the amount was ex- 
pressed as forty pounds value in lawful money, or a forty- 
shilling income. South Carolina after 1745 permitted free- 
holders in towns to vote if they possessed sixty pounds value 
of taxable land or houses in towns. 

All the colonies to the southward of New York expressed 
the freehold in acres or lots rather than in value or income, 
as was the case in New England and New York. In New 
Jersey after 1702 the minimum amount where no personal 
property was held, was one hundred acres ; in Pennsylvania, 
after some slight changes, it was fixed at fifty acres, twelve 
of which must be cleared, and Delaware had an identical 
provision; while Maryland after 1670 also required fifty 
acres. Virginia up to 1736 had expressed no legal size for 
the freehold, but after that year the voter could qualify by 
virtue of one hundred acres of unsettled land, or twenty- 
five acres with a house and settled plantation, or a house 
or lot in some legally established town. In 1762 this was 
changed to fifty acres of unsettled land, and the house either 
on plantation or in town must be at least twelve feet square. 
North Carolina after 1735 possessed the fifty acres quali- 
fication, and Georgia had the same provision imposed upon 
her by royal instructions in 1754. South Carolina from at 
least 1704 had the fifty acres provision in connection with 
other qualifications. In 1745 this was elaborated into a 



480 The Suffrage Franchise in tlxe English Colonies. 

settled plantation, or three hundred acres of unsettled land, 
or sixty pounds value in taxable houses and lands in towns ; 
but in 1759 the three hundred acres were reduced to one 
hundred. Thus, immediately before the Revolution, from 
New Jersey to Georgia the freehold, with one exception in 
South Carolina, was expressed in acres of land; in six 
colonies the size was fixed at fifty acres, with other options 
in Virginia; while in New Jersey and South Carolina, one 
of the requirements was one hundred acres of freehold. In 
Georgia and North Carolina the fifty acres freehold was the 
sole property qualification for the suffrage at the close of 
the colonial period; in all the other colonies the acres of 
freehold were linked w r ith other alternatives, such as dif- 
ferent forms of freehold, as in Virginia and South Caro- 
lina, or personal property requirements, as in New Jersey, 
Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland, or the payment of 
taxes, as in South Carolina. 

C. At the close of the colonial period a freehold of some 
size or value was required of voters in seven colonies : New 
Hampshire, Rhode Island, 1 New York, New Jersey, Vir- 
ginia, North Carolina and Georgia. In the six other colo- 
nies there were alternatives to the real estate qualification in 
the form of the holding of personal property or the payment 
of taxes. The forty-shilling income from freehold was, in 
Massachusetts and Connecticut, paralleled by a personal 
property requirement of forty pounds ; 2 and the same 
amount of personal property was placed upon a parity with 
fifty acres of land in Delaware and Maryland. Pennsylvania 
made fifty acres of land and fifty pounds value of personal 
estate equivalent terms. New Jersey after 1705 and New 
Hampshire between 1699 and 1728 possessed an unusual 
qualification, which permitted freeholders to vote if they did 
not possess the requisite freehold, but instead owned fifty 
pounds value of personal estate, together with any amount, 
however small, of freehold land. South Carolina, also, from 
1704 to 1 72 1, had a personal property qualification at first of 

1 With the exception of the eldest sons of freeholders, who could 
vote, although not themselves possessing real estate. 

* I have taken here the colonial interpretation of the Massachusetts 
charter of 1691. 






Conclusion. 48! 

ten, and later of fifty pounds, as equivalent to the fifty acres 
of land. 

D. At the time of the Revolution only one colony, — South 
Carolina, — retained the tax-paying feature of the suffrage re- 
quirements. In that colony by the law of 172 1 persons pay- 
ing twenty shillings in taxes were permitted to vote. This 
was discontinued in 1745, but in 1759 the principle was again 
adopted, and the amount of taxes necessary to qualify the 
voter was reduced from twenty to ten shillings. A similar 
practice of conditioning political privileges upon the payment 
of taxes is found at one time or another in other colonies. As 
early as 1656 in Virginia the principle is affirmed; from 
171 5 to 1735 it is the sole basis for the suffrage in North 
Carolina; and in 1664 tax-paying in an excessive amount 
was required of non-church-members who desired to be ad- 
mitted as freemen in Massachusetts. 

7. Freemanship in Corporations. The manner in which 
the English theory of corporations received a wide political 
interpretation in America has been seen already in the studies 
of the charter colonies ; and in the summary just made, the 
qualifications required of freemen in those colonies have been 
grouped, where possible, under similar headings with the 
qualifications of voters in other colonies. But in addition to 
the requirements already given, the corporation colonies had 
practices in the admission of their freemen which virtually 
amounted to further qualifications upon the suffrage. One 
of the most general of such features is the taking of an oath, 
a " charge," or an " engagement" of fidelity to the govern- 
ment. This custom was practically universal in the New 
England corporations, and in Rhode Island and New Haven, 
even existed in the separate towns before they were incor- 
porated into larger unions. Another frequent, but not uni- 
versal, custom was that requiring the candidate for the fran- 
chise to pass a period of probation after his name had been 
proposed and before he was formally accepted as a freeman. 
Plymouth originated this custom at least as early as 1636 by 
requiring those proposed at one court to " stand propounded" 
until the next court; and in 1658 this was changed to a 
whole year's probation. Connecticut after 1662 required a 
six months' probation, and Rhode Island, after 1762 had the 

31 



482 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

shorter term of three months. Massachusetts never adopted 
the probation plan except from 1673 t0 I ^3 f° r applicants 
who were not church-members. 

Still another restriction upon freemen was the requirement 
in Connecticut and Massachusetts that the candidates present 
certificates from the civil or ecclesiastical authorities of the 
town that they possessed the desired moral or property quali- 
fications. But more interesting than this, was the Plymouth 
rule of 1656 that applicants for the provincial freedom must 
first have been approved for that honor by the freemen of the 
town in which they dwelt, and later proposed by the town 
deputies to the court. This virtually left the control of the 
freemanship with the body of existing freemen in each town. 
Similar perhaps in theory, but different in practice, was the 
Rhode Island distinction between town freemen and colony 
freemen. In this colony, after a period of town control of 
the subject, the legislature imposed various qualifications 
upon the freemen of the towns, and having fulfilled these re- 
quirements for the town freedom, a man could gain the colo- 
nial franchise as a matter of form. The most remarkable of 
all the colonial suffrage qualifications is also to be found in 
Rhode Island, where, after 1723, the political power of the 
freeman-freeholder included not only himself, but his eldest 
son as well if the latter were of legal age. The latter could 
be admitted to the town and colonial franchise by virtue of 
his birth, in a manner similar to that in which the freedom of 
certain English municipalities could be gained. 

8. Qualifications Similar to the English Borough Fran- 
chise. The details of suffrage qualifications heretofore men- 
tioned may all be held to correspond to the county franchise 
in England. It is true that the New England colonies were 
political corporations differing but little in their origin from 
the various municipal political corporations of England ; but 
the manner in which the franchise was exercised in these 
colonies conforms closely to the county suffrage in England. 
It must be remembered, too, that a distinct town franchise 
was not greatly needed in those colonies which possessed a 
personal property alternative to the freehold requirement; 
or, where, in Virginia or South Carolina, the size or value of 
freehold was so stated that it would admit to the franchise 



Conclusion. 



483 



many of the inhabitants of the towns. But in addition to 
such general provisions, there are some cases of the formal 
adoption of the English borough franchise. 

In North Carolina, to a greater degree than in any other 
colony, was the distinction between the county and the town 
franchise elaborated, and in that colony also the variety of 
suffrage provisions gave an opportunity for partisan election- 
eering in the boroughs. The voters' qualifications in the 
nine towns varied among the towns and at different times in 
the same town. In one case all who happened to be present 
at the election, without respect to residence or ownership of 
property, had the right to vote. While, in most cases, the 
town suffrage was extended to those who occupied a house of 
lawful size in the town, or who were owners of unoccupied 
houses, yet there are instances of the limitation of the bor- 
ough franchise to freeholders alone. Thus the qualifications 
varied from mere residence in the town, to the tenancy of a 
house, or to the possession of a freehold within the town lim- 
its. In the main, however, the qualifications of voters in 
these towns conformed to those of the inhabitant-house- 
holder boroughs of England. 

The same statement is true of the towns of Perth Amboy, 
Burlington and Salem in New Jersey, of Williamsburg and 
Norfolk in Virginia, and of Annapolis in Maryland; in all 
of which the voter must be a freeholder or an inhabiting 
householder of the town. St. Mary's, in Maryland, on the 
other hand, possessed the narrow corporation franchise, in 
which the officers were as open to corruption as they were in 
the similar towns of England. The English freeman-bor- 
ough franchise also finds its exact counterpart in the elections 
by freemen of the corporations of the cities of New York and 
Albany. In these places the freemanship was acquired by 
apprenticeship or purchase, and was linked to a residence re- 
quirement of three months after securing the freedom in New 
York City, and of six weeks in Albany. Thus in the bor- 
ough suffrage, as in the county franchise, the force of Eng- 
lish precedent is everywhere apparent. The English freeman 
borough, the householder-inhabitant borough, the corpora- 
tion borough, all have their counterparts in America. 

9. The University Franchise. Only one instance has been 



484 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

found of the extension to America of the principle which 
gave political representation to institutions of learning. This 
is the case of the College of William and Mary in Virginia, 
where the president and six masters possessed the right of 
choosing a member of the house of burgesses. New Eng- 
land, with all her respect for education, never put political 
power within the control of her colleges. 

The preceding summary makes it apparent that English 
customs and precedents exercised a determining influence 
upon the qualifications of voters in the colonies. Local con- 
ditions sometimes suggested or compelled variations from the 
English customs, but such divergences were rarely so vital as 
to impair the true nature of the suffrage as an English prac- 
tice. In two ways these English customs came into colonial 
elections ; first by the natural and perhaps unconscious adher- 
ence of the colonists to the forms already familiar to them; 
and, secondly, by the determined effort of the English author- 
ities to place the colonial suffrage upon a basis similar to that 
in England. Thus, consciously or unconsciously, the elective 
system was brought into conformity to English ideas. Of 
the old world qualifications, those of age and sex seem to 
have been adopted most readily in the colonies ; while those 
of property were changed in many ways to adapt them to the 
new conditions. 

At the outset the suffrage in most of the colonies con- 
formed to the voters' qualifications in the English towns 
rather than to the freehold requisite of the English county. 
Thus in New England, — where the feeling of community 
membership was strengthened by the church system, by the 
town life and by the precedent of the charter of the Massa- 
chusetts Bay Company, — the freeman principle of the Eng- 
lish boroughs became the basis of the suffrage. In the south- 
ern colonies, on the other hand, while the word freeman was 
occasionally used in a sense referring to membership in the 
colony, the term soon lost the intensely exclusive meaning 
which made it so valuable to the New England Puritan. It 
came to be identified with the word inhabitant, and thus the 
early suffrage in Virginia, Maryland and the Carolinas is 



Conclusion. 485 

similar to the franchise in those English towns where all 
adult male housekeepers participated in elections. In the 
middle colonies this early phase is not apparent. But in the 
south and in New England the holding of land came to be 
the sole qualification, or an alternative one with the owner- 
ship of personal property. And in this process the borough 
basis of freemanship or inhabitancy gave place to the owner- 
ship of property; that is, a qualification akin to the county 
franchise in England. 

It has been held 1 that this movement toward higher quali- 
fications and a restricted suffrage came upon the demand of 
the English government; and, indeed, as we shall see, the 
weight of English authority was almost uniformly in favor 
of a property qualification. But before commenting upon the 
efforts of the home government in this direction, it should be 
noted that there are indications of a similar spirit among the 
colonists themselves. Thus Connecticut in 1657 and 1659 
imposed a property qualification upon freemen and voting in- 
habitants; in 1658 Massachusetts required non- freemen vot- 
ing in town meetings to possess twenty pounds value of taxa- 
ble property; Maryland, as early as 1666, shows evidence of 
a tendency toward government by freeholders ; and Virginia 
in 1670 adopted a restrictive clause. Thus with the growth 
of population and the removal of the frontier from the coast 
plains, property-holding and non-property-holding classes 
became distinct; vested interests arose; and these in turn 
demanded a political interpretation of their favored position. 
It is probable, under the prevailing seventeenth and eigh- 
teenth century political ideals, that a restricted suffrage 
would have been adopted throughout the colonies even if the 
English government had not endeavored to obtain the same 
end. But that the restriction took the frequent form of a 
freehold qualification, especially in the forty-shilling pro- 
vision, is due in very large degree to the influence of the 
English government. 

This influence is seen first of all in the royal charters to 
proprietors, in which, with the exception of that to the Duke 
of York, distinct provision is made for representative assem- 

1 Bishop, History of Elections in American Colonies, 72. 



486 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

blies. The Maryland, the Carolina and the Pennsylvania 
charters mention assemblies elected by the freemen or by the 
freeholders, and thus, although no distinction is made be- 
tween them, two of the features of the English franchise are 
imposed upon these colonies. But a more definite control of 
the franchise is obtained in the royal provinces, where the 
authority of the English government is almost uniformly 
used to limit the suffrage to freeholders. The earliest in- 
stance noticed of this policy is found in the instructions of 
1676 to Governor Berkeley of Virginia, which directed him 
to " take care that the members of the assembly be elected 
only by ffreeholders, as being more agreeable to the custome 
of England." After that date, the same policy, often in the 
same words, was copied in the instructions of the govern- 
ors of Virginia and other colonies. So general was the in- 
sertion of this clause after 1689 that it may be called uni- 
versal. It appears in New Hampshire in 1682 after the 
remarkable suffrage acts of the Cutt assembly ; in New York 
it is found in 1689 in the instructions to Governor Slaughter; 
and in New Jersey, the Carolinas and Georgia it appears in 
all the royal instructions or commissions from the beginning 
of the royal government in each case. The policy thus laid 
down was not weakly administered; and it is to be noted 
that in all the seven royal governments, with the exception of 
a subordinate clause enfranchising certain tax-payers in South 
Carolina, the suffrage was strictly limited to freeholders. 
The personal property alternatives are to be found either in 
boroughs in these royal provinces, or in the general provi- 
sions of the three proprietary provinces and the charter colo- 
nies of Massachusetts and Connecticut. 

In addition to this continuous policy of the English gov- 
ernment, there were occasions upon which more particular at- 
tention was paid to the suffrage in certain colonies. An in- 
stance of this is seen in the instructions to the parliamentary 
commissioners sent to reduce the Chesapeake Bay settlements 
during the Commonwealth period, directing them to exclude 
from the suffrage those who would not swear to support the 
new English administration. But a much more noted case is 
that of the Stuart commissioners to New England in 1664. 
The account of their duties and acts has already been given. 



Conclusion. 



487 



As a result of their labors the Massachusetts law of 1664 ad- 
mitting non-church-members was passed; Rhode Island 
adopted the very words of the commissioners in its suffrage 
law ; and the influence of the commission was felt in Con- 
necticut and Plymouth. Similar instances of English inter- 
ference with the suffrage franchise have been noticed in New 
Jersey, in North Carolina and in Georgia; and the policy is 
summed up in 1767 in a circular instruction to the governors 
of all the royal provinces directing them to give assent to no 
law altering the number of members of the legislature of 
their colonies, or the time of continuance of the assembly, or 
changing the qualifications of electors or elected} It is evi- 
dent that throughout the colonial period the English authori- 
ties took a deep interest in the question of the colonial suf- 
frage, and uniformly used their influence in favor of the 
freehold qualification. 

In closing, reference may be made to the figures obtained 
showing the size of the voting class. In Virginia in several 
elections between 1744 and 1772 there appeared to be about 
nine per cent, of the white population actually participating 
as electors. In New York City, in the elections of 1735, 
1 76 1 and 1769 the actual voters numbered about eight per 
cent, of the population. In Pennsylvania the tax-list figures 
give only potential voters, but they show about eight per cent, 
of the rural population qualified for the suffrage, and only 
two per cent, in the city of Philadelphia, a condition quite in 
contrast to that of New York City. In New England the 
actual voters appear to be less proportionately than in the 
middle and southern colonies. Massachusetts, for instance, 
shows only one person in fifty as taking part in elections, and 
Connecticut, in elections immediately preceding the Revolu- 
tion, had about the same proportion. In Rhode Island the 
freemen or potential voters numbered only nine per cent, of 
the population. These figures are entirely too few, and too 
scattered in time and territory, to justify any accurate gener- 
alization from them. The potential voters seem to vary from 
one-sixth to one-fiftieth of the population, and the actual 

l N. J. Archives, IX, 637 (July 24, 1767). 



488 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 

voters show almost an equal variation; Massachusetts and 
Connecticut showing at times only two per cent, of actual 
voters among a population where perhaps sixteen per cent, 
were qualified electors; and New York City and Virginia 
showing the far larger proportion of eight per cent, of the 
population as actual voters. At best, however, the colonial 
elections called forth both relatively and absolutely only a 
small fraction of the present percentage of voters. Property 
qualifications, poor means of communication, large election 
districts and the absence of party organization combined to 
make the most sharply contested elections feeble in their 
effects upon the community as compared with the widespread 
suffrage of the twentieth century. 






INDEX 



Abj uration, . oath of, in Del., 270. 

Acadians, presence of, probable 
cause of disfranchisement of 
Catholics in S. C, 158. 

Acrelius, account of elections in 
Pa., 285. 

Actual voters, number of, in 
Mass., 356-357. 

Admission, of inhabitants to towns 
on Long Island, 192; in N. Y. 
under Duke's Laws, 203-204; of 
partners in Plymouth, 303 note; 
of freemen in Mass., 302-304; 
terms of, 308; in distant towns, 
309; of freemen, 328-329; into 
Plymouth partnership, 340; into 
freemanship, 341 ; of inhabi- 
tants, 342-343; of inhabitants 
to towns in Mass., 363 ; to 
towns in N. H., 378; to towns 
in Conn., 383-385; refusal to 
grant, 385; of freemen, by local 
officers, 413; of inhabitants, 421. 

Agamenticus, Maine, city govern- 
ment in, 350. 

Age, as qualification of electors, 
in England, 2; origin of legal 
age, 2 note; twenty-one years 
in Va., 35; twenty-one years in 
N. C, 92, in; twenty-one years 
, in S. C, 140, 146, 153, 155, 157; 
twenty-one years in Ga., 172 ; in 
N. Y., twenty-one years, 212; 
in Del., twenty-one years, 270; 
in Pa., twenty-one years, 275, 
279, 282; in Mass., twenty-one 
years, 310; in Mass., twenty- 
four years in case of certain 
town electors, 318; under law 
of 1664, twenty-four years, 324; 
town elections, twenty-four 
years, 362; in Plymouth militia 
elections, twenty years, 366; in 
N. H., in 1680, twenty-four 
years, 374; in 1682, twenty-one 
years, 375 ; in Conn., twenty-one 
years, 386, 388, 408; in colonies 
generally, 474. 



Albany, N. Y, suffrage in, 222- 
223. 

Aliens, as electors in S. C, 132, 
135, 137, 138, 141; excluded 
from assembly, 141. 

Alms, persons receiving such dis- 
franchised in England, 11; but 
may vote in some towns, 15. 

Altona, Del., 267. 

Amsterdam, obtains settlement on 
Delaware, 263 ; inducements to 
settlers, 264; all Delaware lands 
ceded to, 265; government of 
colony, 267. 

Andros, Sir Edmund, as governor 
of N. Y., claims authority in 
N. J., 237 ; in Mass., 334 ; arrest 
of, 335 ; in N. H., 375, 377 J in 
Conn., 412. 

Anglican party in S. C, influence 
elections, 136. 

Annapolis, Md., elections in, 72. 

Annuities, as freeholds in Eng- 
land, 9. 

Antinomians in Mass., 307. 

Apprentices, as electors in S. C, 
147; excluded, 148; in Mass., 
to be admitted as town inhabi- 
tants, 363 note 2; copied by N. 
H., in 1718 and 1719, 378; as 
town inhabitants, in R. I., 468. 

Aquedneck, R. I., settlement of, 
433 '■> agreements among in- 
habitants, ibid. 

Archdale, John, governor of N. 
C, 90; of S. C, 134- 

Aristocracy, in Mass., 304. 

Artisan class in S. C, 156; as 
electors in Pa. under laws made 
in England, 275; disfranchised 
in Pa., 292. 

Assembly, first representative in 
America, 19-21 ; first in Caro- 
lina, 84, 85; biennial, in N. C, 
88, 97, 98 ; a grievance in N. G, 
99; at Hemptead, L. I., called 
by Col. Nicholls, 198; suffrage 
for, ibid.; promulgates Duke's 
489 



49Q 



Index. 



Laws, 198; irregular, in N. J., 
234 ; in West Jersey exercises 
wide powers in election of offi- 
cers, even of governor, 247; 
number of members of, in N. J., 
249; number of members of, in 
Del., 270. 

Association, revolutionary, in S. 
C. in 1719, 150; Protestant, in 
Md., 69. 

Associators. See Regulators. 

Attendance, at election, required 
in England, 3; but perhaps not 
required at early period, 3 note; 
may not have been required in 
early Va., 22; not required in 
Long Island towns, 192, 207 
note 4; not required in Mass., 
312 note; not required in R. I., 
463-464. See also Proxy 
Voting. 

Bacon's Rebellion, in Va., 32-33; 
effect upon suffrage, ibid. 

Ballot, in English universities, 16; 
a grievance therein, ibid.; use 
of in Virginia Company, 18, 22; 
forbidden in Va., 26 ; or " sub- 
scription" in Va., 1655, 2 8; es- 
tablished in N. C, 92; method 
of collecting, 102; abolished in 
N. C, in 1760, in; desired by 
Regulators, 113; used in parish 
elections, 118, but forbidden in 
1764, 119; in S. C, in 1669, 124; 
always used in colony, 141 ; ir- 
regular, to be invalid, 146; in 
1716, 145; in 1719, 151; elector 
need not subscribe, ibid.; op- 
posed by Governor Glen, 154, 
156, 157; used in West Jersey, 
245; provided for in Del., 270; 
description of, 271; in Pa., 275; 
used in elections in Pa., but 
sometimes neglected, 277 ; beans 
used in taking, ibid.; opposition 
to, 278; written, 282; mode of 
using, 283 note 5; in Mass., 
origin of, 310-312; beans used 
in, 312; paper ballots, ibid.; in 
Plymouth, 349 note; used in 
Mass. town elections, 361 ; and 
in militia elections, 365 note 4; 
in New Haven, 397 ; in Conn., 
effect of charter of 1662 upon, 
407; in Conn., 407, 411, 413, 416- 



417; in R. I. towns, 437; in 
R. I., 442-443 ; corruption of, 
443 ; under charter of 1663, 447, 
463-467 ; sick electors may send, 
464 ; those received in town 
meetings must be signed, 464- 
465 ; irregularities concerning. 
465 ; must be given in town 
meetings and not at Newport, 
466. 

Ballot-box in N. C. described, 
102; in S. C, 141, 146; in West 
Jersey, 246; in Del., described, 
271 ; mentioned in Pa., 277 ; a 
hat used for, 278 ; use of, in 
Pa., 282; frauds of, 285. 

Baltimore, Lord, charter to, 48. 

Banishment a punishment for re- 
ligious offences in Mass., 307. 

Baptists in Mass., measures 
against, 320-321 ; disfranchised, 
in colonies generally, 475. 

Barbadoes, proxy voting in, 141 
note; laws of, a precedent for 
S. C legislation, 145 note. 

Barclay, Robert, Quaker apologist, 
governor of East Jersey, 239. 

Bath, England, borough suffrage 
in, 16. 

Bath, town in N. C, suffrage in. 
93, no, 114; law respecting, 115. 

Baxter, George, of Gravesend, L. 
I., 183. 

Beans used in balloting in Pa.. 
277; in Mass., 312; in New 
Haven, 397. 

Beaufort, N. C, suffrage in, H5 : 
116. 

Bellomont, Earl of, opposes R. I. 
ballot system, 466 note 7; op- 
poses R. I. militia elections, 
470-471. 

Bergen, N. J., popular meeting in, 
189; receives charter in 1661, 
227; charter of, 249 note. 

Berkeley, Lord, receives grant of 
N. J., 228. 

Berkeley, Sir William, governor 
of Va., 29; receives new in- 
structions, 33; one of Carolina 
proprietors, 82. 

Bicameral system in Md., 52. 

Blake, Joseph, chosen governor in 

s. c, 133-134. 

Board of Trade, English. See 
Lords of Trade and Plantations. 






Index. 



49i 



Boatmen as electors in Campbel- 
ton, N. C, 117. 

Borough elections, in Pa., 296- 
297. 

Borough suffrage in England, 10- 
16; in Va., 42-44; in Md., 73; 
adopted in N. C. in 171 5, 93; 
described, 114-117; distin- 
guished from county, in Pa., 
275; in colonies generally, 482- 
483. 

Boston, Mass., number of electors 
in, 355-356. 

Boys as electors in N. C, 91 ; in 
Pa., 285. 

Brent, Mrs. Margaret, claims a 
vote in Md., 53~54, 473- 

Bribery punished in England, 7. 
8; in Va., the briber disquali- 
fied to sit in assembly, 35 ; pun- 
ished in N. C, 102; in S. C 
147 ; in Del., 270, 271 ; fine for, 
in Pa., 283; in R. I. every free- 
man required to take oath 
against, 459. 

Bristol, England, borough suf- 
frage in, 14. 

Bristol, Pa., called a town, 295 
note; borough charter of 296- 
297; town meetings in, ibid. 

Brooklyn, N. Y., popular meeting 
in, 189. 

Brunswick, N. C, suffrage in, 
116. 

Bulkeley, Peter, criticises Conn, 
revolution of 1689, 413; esti- 
mate of number of freemen, 419, 

Burgage tenure defined, 12; quali- 
fication of electors, 12; number 
of, 13. 

Burgesses in New Haven to be 
church-members, 392. 

Burlington, N. J., suffrage in, 249 
and note 3, 253, 255 ; charter of, 
256 note. 

Burrington, George, governor of 
N. C, explains fundamentals. 
87> 90; commission of, 96; 
writs of election, 96; desires 
repeal of N. C. suffrage laws, 
97 ; erects new precincts, 98. 

Byllinge, Edward, proprietor of 
West Jersey, 235, 244, 246. 

Calvert, Charles, Lord Baltimore, 
63, 67. 



Calvert, Leonard, governor of 
Md., 49; Mrs. Brent executrix 
of, 54- 

Cambridge, University of, suf- 
frage in, 16. 

Campbelton, N. C, suffrage in, 

Cape Fear colony in Carolina, 85, 
122. 

Cape Porpus, Me., annexed to 
Mass., 352. 

Capitulation, terms of, after Eng- 
lish conquest of New Nether- 
land, 197 ; after Dutch conquest 
of Swedes on Delaware, 261 ; 
on Delaware upon surrender to 
Duke of York, 265, 267. 

Carlisle, borough suffrage in, 

*4- . 

Carolina, division into colonies, 
84, 122. 

Carteret, Philip, governor of N. 
C, 88; of N. J., 231^234. 

Carteret, Sir George, receives 
grant of N. J., 228. 

Cary, Colonel, influence upon suf- 
frage in N. C, 91. 

Castle Rising, borough suffrage 
in, 15. 

Catholics, disfranchised in Eng- 
land during Commonwealth 
period, 3 ; probably excluded 
after 1696, 4; disfranchised in 
Va., 35 ; disqualified as wit- 
nesses, 35 ; disfranchised in 
Md., 56, 58, 69, 71-72, 74; in 
S. C, in 1759, 157, 158; in N. 
Y. in 1689, 201; in 1701, 214; 
in N. H. in 1680, 374; in R. I. 
in 1719, 451; in colonies gen- 
erally, 476 

Cavaliers, influence in Va., 30. 

Certificates, required of electors, 
in Mass., under law of 1664, 324; 
in Mass., freemen admitted 
upon, 328-329; in Plymouth, 
required of incoming settlers, 
343; required of electors in 
Conn., 404, 408, 413- 

Chamber of Accounts of Dutch 
West India Company, favor 
representative government in 
New Netherland, 177. 

Character, good, as qualification 
of electors in Pa., in 1682, 275; 
in Mass. town elections, 318; re- 



492 



Index. 



quired in king's letter, 322, 323; 
adopted in law of 1664, 324 ; in 
Plymouth, 345, 347; in Mass. 
town elections, 362; in N. H., 
374 ; in Conn., 387, 388, 408-409 ; 
towns, 422; in R. I., 448-449; 
colonies generally, 476-477. 

Charles II., correspondence with 
Mass., 322; requires repeal of 
Mass. freeman law, ibid.; favors 
religious liberty, 323. 

Charleston, S. C, all elections 
held therein, 137, 143-144; op- 
posed by proprietors, 144, but 
later favored by them, ibid.; 
corporate government proposed 
for, ibid.; grand jury presents 
elections therein as an evil, 
ibid.; abolished by law, in 1716, 
145; restored by proprietors, 
149; again abolished, 151; eco- 
nomic opposition to, 152; in- 
corporated in 1783^ 159. 

Charlestown, Mass., town suffrage 
in, 360; rights of commonage 
in, 367. 

Charter, of Privileges of 1618 in 
Va., 18; suffrage in the Md., 
48; suffrage in the Carolina, 
80-81 ; to Duke of York, 196- 
197, 228; town, in N. J., 249 
note; of privileges, granted by 
Penn, 269 ; suffrage in Penn's, 
273 ; Penn's to his province in 
1701, 281; king's to Mass. Bay 
Company in 1629, 301-302 ; for- 
feited, 334; to Gorges, 350; to 
Mass. in 1691, 353~354; am- 
biguity concerning qualifications 
of electors, 354; to Conn., 402; 
analysis of, 405 ; abolished re- 
ligious qualifications of New 
Haven, 406; effect upon proxy 
voting, 407; restoral of officers 
under, in 1689, 412; to R. I. in 
1644, 439-440 ; to R. I. in 1663, 
446-448. 

Chester, Pa., called a town, 295 
note; borough charter of, 296- 
297 ; town meetings in, ibid. 

Chester County, Pa., petitions 
against election evils, 284, 285. 

Children, excluded from militia 
elections, in Plymouth, 366. 

Chimneys, significance of, in bor- 
ough suffrage in N. C, 94. 



Choristers, as electors in England, 
9- 

Christians, as electors, in S. C, 
146, 153, 155; in Pa. in 1682, 
275, 276; in R. I., 451. 

Christina, Del., 267. 

Church attendance in Mass. re- 
quired of all electors, 321. 

Church, offices in, as freeholds in 
England, 9; definition of, in 
Mass., 306; none formed with- 
out approbation, ibid.; organi- 
zation in Mass., 306; condition 
of, in Mass. in 1646, 316; or- 
ganization of, in New Haven, 
392-393; controlled by govern- 
ment, 396. 

Church elections, in Mass., 363- 
365; in N. H., by freeholders 
alone, 378; by tax-payers, ibid.; 
in Conn., 423-425. See also 
Parish Elections. 

Churches, elections in S. C. held 
in, 145. 

Church-members, colony franchise 
limited to, in Mass., 304 ; Cotton 
favors this limitation, 305 ; dif- 
ficulty of defining term, 305- 
306; defined, 307; Half- Way 
Covenant, 307; reluctant to be- 
come freeman, 308; Half-Way 
Covenant not adopted in politi- 
cal sense, 318-319; Charles II. 
opposes exclusive privileges of, 
322-323; effect of law of 1664 
324, 329; Randolph writes con- 
cerning, 331 ; still a favored 
class in 1690, 336 ; but not after 
1691, 337; in Plymouth, fran- 
chise limited to, 346; electors 
in Conn., 389; electors, in New 
Haven, 390, 392 ; excluded when 
members of irregularly organ- 
ized churches, 396; all encour- 
aged to become, 402 ; electors in 
Conn, church elections, 425. 

Church-wardens, election of, in 
Va., 45 ; managers of elections 
in S. C, 145. 

Cinque ports, representation of, 2, 
4- 

Citizens (inhabitants of a city) 
as electors in Maine, 351. 

Citizenship as qualification of 
electors, in England, 3 ; alien 
Huguenots as electors in S. C, 



Index. 



493 



132 ; their naturalization 

favored, 134; temporary act 
passed, 134; permanent act, 
141 ; in Albany, N. Y., 222, 
223; in Del., 270; in Pa. in 
1682, 276; in 1694 free deni- 
zens, 279; in 1705, 282; in 
Mass., in 1664, must be Eng- 
lishmen, 324, 362; in N. H*., 
Englishmen, 374; in colonies 
generally, 474~475- 

City elections in New York City 
under charter of 1683, 221 ; 
charter of 1686, 221 ; method of 
obtaining freedom, 221 ; charter 
of 1730, 222; parish elections, 
224 ; in Albany, N. Y., 222-223 ; 
in Philadelphia, Pa., 298. 

Claiborne, William, parliamentary 
commissioner in Md., 57. 

Clergymen, excluded from Md. 
assembly, 71. 

Coddington, William, 441. 

Colleton, James, governor of S. C, 

131. 

Commissioners, parliamentary, in 
Md., 57. 

Commissioners, royal, to New 
England, in Mass., 323-326; in 
Plymouth, 347-348 ; pleased with 
Plymouth government, 348; in 
Conn., 409-410; in R. I., 448- 

449- . 

Commissioners, town, in N. C, 
elections of, 117, 118. 

Commissions of royal governors, 
with their instructions, furnish 
suffrage qualifications, 209. 

Committee of correspondence, ap- 
pointed in Ga. in 1741, 167. 

Commoners, as electors, in N. Y., 
225 ; in Mass., 358-359, 36*7-369 J 
in Conn, and New Haven, 426- 
429; in R. I., 436, 469. 

Common land, suffrage concern- 
ing. See Land Matters. 

Common Prayer, Book of, Charles 
II. commands Mass. to grant 
liberty to use, 322 ; in Mass. its 
use forbidden, 325. 

Commonwealth, Connecticut, 381. 

Commonwealth, English, engage- 
ment to support, required of 
voters in Md., 57; proclaimed 
by inhabitants of Long Island, 
186 note. 



Communicants, of church, as 
electors in Mass., 319; in Conn., 
424. 

Compulsory voting, in Va., 21, 26- 
27, 36, 41; in Md., 73-74; in 
N. C vestry elections, 119; in 
Del., 270; in Mass., paralleled 
by compulsory freemanship, 
308 ; in Plymouth, 341, 348 ; in 
R. I., 450. 

Concessions to settlers in Caro- 
linas, 83, 123, 124 ; in N. J., 83 ; 
in Ga., 164; in New Nether- 
land in 1629, 174; in 1661 to 
English settlers, 186; in N. J., 
228, 229 ; interpretation of, 234 ; 
in West Jersey in 1677, 245, 246. 

Confederation, of towns on Rhode 
Island, 438. 

Congregationalism, dangers of, in 
Mass., 306; theory of, 306 note; 
opposed by Presbyterians, 314. 

Connecticut, settlement of river 
towns, 380; fundamentals of 
J 639, 381 ; freemanship and suf- 
frage under fundamentals, 382- 
384; oath of freeman, 383 note; 
town restrictions upon freemen, 
384-386 ; delegation of power to 
admit freemen, 386; restriction 
upon colony freemen, 387-389; 
number of freemen admitted, 
387, 390 ; religious qualifications, 
389-390; suffrage in New 
Haven, 390-405 (see New 
Haven) ; charter of 1662, 402, 
405-407; union with New 
Haven, 402-405; colonial suf- 
frage limited to freemen, 406- 
407 ; new qualifications of elect- 
ors, £20 estate, 408 ; many new 
freemen, 408 ; royal commission- 
ers in, 409-410; freemen's oath, 
410; means to prevent election 
frauds, 410-41 1 ; qualification of 
£20 freehold in 1673, 411; of 
£10 freehold in 1675, 412; land 
assessments in, 412 ; Andros and 
revolution of 1689, 412; forty- 
shilling freehold required in 
1689, 413 ; joined with £40 per- 
sonal estate in 1702, 414; elec- 
tion irregularities, 414 i mode of 
admission of freemen, 415; 
proxy system of balloting, 416, 
417; nomination of candidates, 



494 



Index. 



417, 418; number of electors, 
418-420; local suffrage, 420- 
429; town suffrage, 420-423; 
church elections, 423-425 ; 
militia elections, 425, 426; suf- 
frage concerning land matters, 
426-429. 

Conscience, liberty of, in Md., 57, 
58; in S. C, to all but Papists, 
135; in N. Y., 197; in Conn., 
409, 410. 

Constables' lists of taxables used 
in Pa. by officers in judging 
qualifications of electors, 285. 

Convention, of representatives 
among N. C. Regulators, 113; 
revolutionary, in S. C. in 1719, 
150; popular, in Ga. in 1749, 
168; in Mass. after the over- 
throw of Andros, 335 ; popular, 
in Maine, 351; in N. H. in 
1690, 375- 

Conveyances, fraudulent, in order 
to qualify voters in England, 8; 
punishment for making, in Va., 
39; in R. I., 461. 

Convicts, disfranchised in Va., 41, 
477- 

Coode, John, revolutionist in Md., 

69. 

Copley, Governor, of Md., 70. 

Copyholders cannot vote in Eng- 
lish counties, 9; permitted in 
some boroughs, 12. 

Cornbury, Governor, in N. J., 250 ; 
indefinite election writs issued 
by, ibid. 

Corn in Mass. used in balloting, 
312; in New Haven, 397. 

Corporation franchise, restricted, 
in England, 15, 16; in St. Mary's 
in Md., 63 ; used for partisan 
purposes, 63. 

Corporation, town proposed in 
Carolinas, 82 ; refused by pro- 
prietors as opposed to rights of 
people, ibid.; to be erected at 
New Amstel on Delaware River, 
264. 

Corporations, economic, in Ply- 
mouth, 338-340 ; in Mass. towns, 
357, 358, 367; in Conn, towns, 
385 ; in New Haven, 391 ; in 
Conn, towns, 426; in R. I., 431. 

Corporations, self-originating, 

Plymouth, 338, 339; in Maine, 



351; in N. H., 371, 372; in 
Conn., 382 ; in New Haven, 391 ; 
in Conn., 426 ; in R. I., 430-434. 

Coroners, election of, in Del., 271 ; 
in Pa., 283, 295. 

Corruption in elections. See Ir- 
regularities in elections. 

Cotton, John, opposes democratic 
government, 304, 305; antago- 
nistic to Hooker, 380. 

Council of State, English, a prece- 
dent for Va., 29. 

Counties, in Pa., origin of, 294. 

County courts, powers of, in Del., 
272; in Pa., 295. 

County elections, in N. Y., 218- 
220; in N. J., 255-256; in Pa., 
283. 

County franchise in England, 5- 
10; distinguished from borough 
in Pa., 275. 

County government in Pa. and 
Del., origin of, 269. 

Courts, local, on Delaware River, 
266-268; influence upon county 
organization of Pa. and Del., 
269. 

Covenant, church, in early Mass., 
306 note; in New Haven, 392. 

Covenant, Half-Way, 307, 318, 

319- 

Coventry, borough suffrage in, 14. 

Coxe, Daniel, proprietor of West 
Jersey, 244. 

Craven, Charles, governor of S. 
C, 142. 

Cricklade, borough suffrage in, 12. 

Criminals as electors in N. C, no. 

Culpepper, Lord, commission as 
governor of Va., 34. 

Cultivation of lands required of 
voting freeholders, in N. J.,239; 
in Del., 270; in Pa., 276, 279, 
281, 282. 

Currency, paper, effect upon suf- 
frage qualifications in S. C, 147, 
148, 155; in Conn., 414; in R. I., 
456, 457, 459, 460. 

Cutt, President, of N. H., inter- 
feres with suffrage, 373; law 
concerning suffrage passed by 
his assembly, 374; but repealed 
by king, ibid. 

Daniel, Robert, governor of N. C, 

90. 



Index. 



495 



Darby, Pa., town meetings in, 293 
note; called a town, 295 note. 

Davenport, John, in New Haven, 
gives advice concerning govern- 
ment, 391, 392. 

Delaware, Lord, possesses arbi- 
trary power in Va., 19. 

Delaware, character of early his- 
tory, 259; early settlements by 
Dutch, English, and Swedes, 
259-261 ; Dutch conquest of 
Delaware lands, 261 ; popular 
government under Dutch, 262, 
263 ; colony of city of Amster- 
dam, 263-265 ; English conquest, 
265 ; terms of capitulation, 265 ; 
government under Duke of 
York, 266; extension of Duke's 
Laws to, 266, 267 ; court system* 
267, 268; absence of popular 
elections, 268; ceded to Penn, 
269; separation from Pa., 269; 
election act of 1734, 270; quali- 
fications of electors, 270; de- 
scription of election, 271 ; elec- 
tions of sheriffs, 271 ; local 
suffrage, 271, 272; borough 
of Wilmington, 272; reasons 
for separation from Pa., 280, 
281. 

Democracy to be avoided in Caro- 
linas, 85 ; opposed by Cotton in 
Mass., 304; unpopular with 
Puritan leaders, 305 ; economic, 
tends to disappear, 369; form 
of government on R. I., 438; 
again affirmed in 1647, 440. 

Deputies in Plymouth, how 
chosen, 344. 

Deserted parishes in S. C, how 
persons could vote by virtue of 
land therein, 147. 

Disfranchised persons fined for 
voting in Va., 35, 41 ; in N. C, 
102; in Del., 270; in Pa., 282; 
vote in Philadelphia, 282; in 
Pa., interfere in elections, 284- 
286; number of, 286; in Mass. 
in 1630, 303 ; in 1635-1637, 307 \ 
must take oath, 309 ; proportion 
of, 313; sometimes vote ille- 
gally, ibid.; growing strength 
of, 314; movement for political 
rights in 1646, 314, 3*5; re- 
strictive measures against, 316, 
317; Quakers, Baptists, and 



criticisers of church laws dis- 
franchised, 320, 321 ; Charles II. 
takes up cause of, 322, 323; in 
Plymouth, exist in 1636, 342 ; do 
not show discontent, 348; in 
Conn., compared with Mass., 
381 ; in New Haven, vote ille- 
gally, 398; size of disfranchised 
class, ibid., demand English 
laws, 399 ; vote illegally, 401 ; 
favor Conn, jurisdiction, 402. 

Disfranchisement, in Va., of con- 
victs, 41, 477; for political rea- 
sons in Md., 59, 60 ; in N. J., of 
those who refuse to re-patent 
their lands, 233 ; in Mass., cases 
of, for religious offences, 307 ; 
of Quakers, Baptists, and those 
criticising church laws, 320-321 ; 
of those not attending church, 
321 ; in Plymouth, of Quakers, 
and their sympathizers, op- 
ponents of established church, 
liars, drunkards, etc., 346-347: 
in Conn., of persons convicted 
of crime, 384 note; in Conn, 
causes of, 408 ; in R. I., of those 
not yielding to English Com- 
monwealth, 442 ; for refusing to 
take oaths, 448-449 ; for bribery, 
459; for election frauds, 461, 
462 note. 

Dissenters, as electors in N. C. 
parish elections, 119; excluded 
from S. C. assembly, 138-139; 
attitude of Mass. towards, 314- 
318, 320-321 ; admitted to free- 
dom of colony, 320 ; favored by 
Charles II., 322 ; change in atti- 
tude toward, 330 ; relieved from 
payment of tithes, 364; but ex- 
cluded from church elections, 
ibid. 

District, incorporated, a municipal 
unit in Pa., 208-299. 

Districts, election, size causes in- 
convenience in N. J., 250; the 
counties adopted as, 253 : in Pa., 
called hundreds, 284 note 4- 

Dobbs, Arthur, governor of N. C, 
instructions to, 106-107; brings 
on confusion in elections, 100- 
110; opposition to assembly, 

Dominion of New England, N. J. 
included in, 241. 



496 



Index. 



Dorchester, Mass., ballot used in, 
361 note; rights of commonage 
in, 367. 

Dover, N. H., settlement of, 37,0; 
compact of settlers, 371 ; re- 
quests union with Mass., 372 ; 
number of voters in, 373 note 4. 

Droitwich, borough suffrage in, 

Drummond, William, governor of 
Albemarle County, N. C, 84. 

Duke's Laws, code promulgated 
at Hempstead, L. I., 198; 
changed slightly by later legis- 
lation, 208; extended to upper 
Hudson and Delaware settle- 
ments, 208; put in force on 
Delaware, 266. 

Durham, borough suffrage in, 14. 

Easthampton, L. I., admission of 
inhabitants, 204; proxy voting 
in, 210 note. 

East Jersey, separated from West 
Jersey, 235 ; difficulties with 
settlers upon Nicholls's grants, 
236-237; contest with New 
York, 237; demand for rights 
of Englishmen, 237; continued 
confusion, 238; transfer to 
Quaker proprietors, 238-239 ; 
fundamental constitutions, 239- 
240 ; seventeenth century theory 
of political rights, 240; funda- 
mentals not enforced, 241 ; at- 
temps to compel re-patenting of 
lands, 241-242 ; revolutionary 
period, 242-243. 

Eaton, Samuel, 392. 

Eaton, Theophilus, 392. 

Economic influence upon political 
development, in Carolinas, 84; 
in S. C, 152. 

Edenton, N. C, suffrage in, 114, 

Education as qualification of 
electors, favored in N. J., 251. 

Eight Men, the, in New Nether- 
land, 176. 

Elections, personal control of, in 
Va., 24 ; machinery of, in Va., 
35, 36 ; Hooker's theory of, 380. 

Elective officers, in New York 
City, 208. 

Electors, rights of, as interpreted 
by N. C. Regulators, 113; to be 



free from civil writs in S. C, 
147. 

Elizabeth, N. J., origin of early 
patents, 231 ; patentees refuse 
to re-patent lands, 232; refuse 
to pay quit-rents, 233; general 
treatment of inhabitants, 238. 

England, Church of, in Mass., 315; 
favored by Charles II. in 
quarrel with Mass., 322; for- 
bidden use of Prayer-Book, 325 ; 
rights demanded for, 326; mem- 
bers not disfranchised in Mass., 
333 ; position of members, 337 ; 
in N. H., 371 ; in Conn., mem- 
bers excluded from church elec- 
tions, when they do not con- 
tribute to support, 424. 

England, laws of, as precedents 
for the colonies, 7 ; quoted as 
justifying property qualification 
in Va., 31 ; in Md., 66; as prece- 
dent for opposing proxy system 
in S. G, 131 ; for opposing per- 
sonal property qualifications, 
*33 ; for opposition to aliens, 
136; opposing residence restric- 
tions, 149; for opposing elective 
officers, 156; demanded in Ga., 
167; as precedent for colonial 
legislation in N. J., 253; desired 
by agitators in Mass., 314; com- 
pared with those of Mass., 317; 
demanded by disfranchised per- 
sons in New Haven, 399. 

England, suffrage in, age qualifi- 
cation of electors, 2; sex, 2; 
proxy voting illegal, 3 ; citizen- 
ship, 3 ; oaths and political 
qualifications, 3 ; position of 
Catholics, 4 ; the county fran- 
chise, 5-10 ; breadth of early suf- 
frage, 5 ; restriction of 1430, 5 ; 
residence at first required of 
elector, later discontinued, 6; 
proportion of non-resident 
voters, 6 ; election machinery, 
7-9; laws against fraud, 8-9; 
extension of suffrage by multi- 
plication of freeholds and by 
changing meaning of term free- 
hold, 9 ; borough and corpora- 
tion franchise, 10-16; inhabi- 
tant franchise, 10-11; potwal- 
loper franchise, 11 ; burgage ten- 
ure franchise, 12 ; freeman 



Index. 



497 



franchise, 13 ; restricted cor- 
poration franchise, 15 ; univer- 
sity franchise, 16; as inter- 
preted by New Haven, 399. 
English government, influence in 
favor of suffrage qualifications, 

484-487. . . . o -, 

Englishmen, petition m S. C. that 
suffrage be limited to, 134 ; on 
Long Island, peculiarly favored 
by Dutch authorities, 185, 190, 
193 ; as electors, in Mass. town 
elections, 362; as electors, in 
N. H., 374. 

Englishmen, rights of, interpreted 
by East Jersey assembly in 1680, 
237 ; demanded in Mass. in 
1646, 31S. 

Exeter, borough suffrage in, 14. 

Exeter, N. H., settlement of, 370; 
compact of settlers, ibid.; num- 
ber of voters in, 373 note 4. 

Faggot voters, in England, 9. 

Fairfield, Conn., popular move- 
ment in, 399. 

Families, Heads of. See Heads. 

Fendall, Governor, in Md., 59"~6°- 

Fenwick, John, in West Jersey, 
244, 245 

Fletcher, Governor, of Pa., atti- 
tude towards suffrage, 278. 

Flushing, L. I, charter of, 190, 
191 ; suffrage in, 206. 

Fort Beversrede, Dutch settlement 
on Schuylkill, 260. 

Fort Casimir, Dutch settlement 
near Newcastle, Del., 260; 262; 
name changed to New Amstel, 
263. 

Fort Christina, Swedish settle- 
ment on the Delaware, 260. 

Fort Nassau, Dutch settlement in 
N. J., 260. 

Forty-shilling freehold, as quali- 
fication of electors, in England, 
ii 5, 6, 9; origin of, in English 
statute of 1430, 5-6 ; adopted in 
N. Y. in 1683, 200; the legal 
qualification in N. Y. in 1691, 
210; compared with Mass. quali- 
fication of 1690, 336 note; in 
Mass. charter of 1691, 354; 
adopted in N. H. in 1699, 376; 
in Conn, in 1689, 413; in R. I., 
454, 460. 



Fractional voting, in Va., 40, 41 ; 

in Southampton, L. I., 207 note; 

on Long Island, 225. 
Frame of government, in Pa., in 

1682, 274. 

Free, qualification of electors in 
N. C, 92; in S. C in 1719, 151 ; 
in 1721, 153; in 1745, 155; in 
1759, 157; in Ga., 172. 

Free men as electors, in England 
at early period, 5 ; in Va., 21, 
29, 33; in Md., 53 note, 55. 

Free Society of Traders, incor- 
porated by Penn, and given 
manorial powers, 294. 

Freedom, of English towns, how 
obtained, 14 ; of New York City, 
how obtained, 220-222 ; of Al- 
bany, N. Y., how obtained, 222. 

Freehold, definition of, in Va., 34, 
36; in N. C, 102; in N. Y., in 

1683, 200, 213; in N. J., diffi- 
culty of determining, 231, 232; 
fixed by proprietors, 234; in R. 
L, 461. 

Freehold, extension of meaning of 
in England leads to extended 
suffrage, 9. 

Freehold, qualification of electors 
in Va., 31; in 1676, 34; in 

1684, 34; of 100 acres unsettled 
land, or 25 acres with house 
and plantation, in Va., 1736, 38 ; 
lowered to 50 acres unsettled 
land in 1762, 40 ; in Md., 62, 71 ; 
in Md., in governor's instruc- 
tions, 70; in S. G, fifty acres, 
148, 153; three hundred acres, 
or settled plantation, or sixty 
pounds value in town lots, 155; 
reduced to one hundred acres in 
1759, 157; in Ga., fifty acres, 
170 ; opposed by assembly^ 172 ; 
established by law, 172; in N. 
Y., 198, 199, 200, 201, 205-207; 
in 1691, 210; in 1609, changed 
to forty pounds value, 212; in 
county elections, 219, 220; in 
town elections, 223 ; in N. J. in 
1665, 230 ; in 1668, 232 ; in East 
Jersey fundamentals of 1683, 
fifty acres, ten cultivated, or 
house and three acres in bor- 
ough, 239 ; in West Jersey, 247, 
248; in N. J. in 1702, one hun- 
dred acres, 249; opposition to, 



32 



498 



hvdex. 




251; amount repealed, 252 ; one 
hundred acres again adopted, 
252 ; finally adopted by law, 254- 
255 ; in Del., fifty acres, twelve 
cleared, 270 ; in Pa., under laws 
made in England, 275 ; in 1682, 
276; in 1693, undefined in 
Fletcher's Frame, 278; in 1694, 
fifty acres, ten cleared, 279 ; 
twelve cleared, 281 ; in Pa., pro- 
posal to change to fifty pounds 
value of, 282; fifty acres re- 
tained, ibid.; in Pa. in local 
elections, 295 note 7, 296; in 
Mass., demanded by Charles II. 
in letter, 322; under law of 
1664, 324; in 1690, 336; in 
Maine by Gorges's charter, 350; 
in Mass. under charter of 1691, 
354 ; in Plymouth, 343 ; in N. 
H. in 1680, 374; in 1682, 375; 
not strictly enforced after 1692, 
376; fifty pounds value in 1727, 
377 ; required of electors in 
town elections, 378; in Conn., 
in 1673, twenty pounds value, 
411; forty shilling income, in 
1689, 413; town elections, 422; 
in R. I. in 1724, £100 value or 
40 shilling income, 454 ; in 1730 
£200 value, or £10 income from, 
457; must be held continuously 
in order to qualify freemen, 458 ; 
in 1746, £400 value or £20 in- 
come from, 459 ; £40 value or 40 
shillings income, 460 ; in col- 
onies generally, 478-480. 

Freeholders and inhabitants, in N. 
Y. believed to be synonymous 
with inhabiting freeholders, 219, 
220, 223, 224; interpretation of 
the phrase in N. J., 256, 257. 

Freeholders, electors in England 
bv act of 1430, 5, 12 ; opposed to 
landless men, in Md., 61, 62, 64- 
65; electors, in Carolinas, 81, 
82, 86, 87 ; in N. C, 96, 98, but 
not enforced, 99 and note; es- 
tablished by law, 100; owning 
one hundred acres, 109; owning 
fifty acres, in; electors in N. 
C. boroughs, 116, 117; in S. C, 
in 1670, 123, 124; in 1672, 128, 
140; favored by proprietors, 
133; in 1717, 148; in 1721, 153; 
in 1745, 155; in 1759, 157-158; 



probable electors in N. Y., in 
1665, 198; electors in N. "V. in 

1683, 199, 200; in 1689, 201; 
electors in West Jersey, 245 ; as 
town electors in N. J., 255, 257; 
electors in Mass., 363. See 
Freehold. 

Freemanship, idea opposed by 
Governor Nicholls in N. Y., 
202-203 ; qualification of elect- 
ors, in colonies generally, 481- 
482. See also Freemen. 

Freemen, as electors in English 
boroughs, 13-15; 455-456; in 
Md., 49, 53; in Carolinas, 81,83; 
in N. C, 92; disfranchised in 
N. C. unless otherwise qualified, 
100; electors in S. C, 123, 124, 
127, 128; synonymous with free- 
holder in early S. C, 130; elect- 
ors in N. Y. in 1665, 108; of 
municipal corporations, electors 
in N. Y., 200; electors in New 
York City and Albany, 208, 210, 
212, 221, 222; proportion of in 
New York City, 218 ; electors 
in N. J., 230, 239; electors in 
Pa., 273, 274 ; term defined, 275, 
279 ; electors in Pa., 283 ; in 
county elections, 295 ; in Mass. 
charter of 1629, 302 ; number of, 
in 1630, 303 ; must be church- 
members, 304 ; other require- 
ments for admission, 307-310; 
oath of, 309; how admitted in 
distant places, 309; number of, 
in 1640, 313-314; those not at- 
tending public worship disfran- 
chised, 321 ; non-church-mem- 
bers may become, under law of 
1664, 324 ; number admitted un- 
der this law, 328-329; probation 
of one year required in certain 
cases, 330; Randolph's estimate 
of number, 331 ; number in 

1684, 334; in Plymouth, origin 
of term, 341 note; method of 
admission, 341 ; in N. H., ad- 
mitted to Mass. freedom, 350; 
in Maine inhabitants admitted 
to Mass., 352; in Mass., given 
control of town affairs, 361 ; 
only to be chosen to offices, 365 ; 
have a vote in militia elections, 
ibid.; in N. H. towns. 350; 
electors in N. H., by law of 



Index. 



499 



1680, 374, 376 ; electors in Conn., 
under orders of 1639, 382; ad- 
mitted by magistrates, 386; 
number of admissions, 387; 
property qualification upon, 388 ; 
restriction of number, ibid.; 
number of, 390 ; in New Haven, 
as electors, 393 ; required to take 
declaration of obedience, ibid.; 
number of, 398; request for 
admission to Conn., 403 ; ad- 
mitted to Conn., 404; in Conn., 
how admitted under charter of 
1662, 405-406; suffrage limited 
to, 407; new qualifications for, 
408; unjust exclusion of, 410; 
list of to be made by town 
clerks, 411 ; new qualifications 
of forty-shilling freehold, 413; 
admitted by local officers, 413; 
personal property qualification, 
414 ; method of admission, 415 ; 
qualifications of, 415-416; num- 
ber of, 418-420; in R. I., must 
first be accepted by towns, 432; 
town freemen, 434 note 2, 435- 
436 ; under charter of 1644, 44°" 
442; how admitted under char- 
ter of 1663, 446-448; refusal to 
admit, 447; all admitted who 
desire it, 449; method of ad- 
mission in 1666, 440-450; com- 
pulsory admission, 450; great 
increase in number, 453-454; 
property qualification upon, in 
1724, 454; eldest sons of free- 
men may obtain franchise, 454- 
456 ; English precedent for, 455- 
456; effect of paper currency 
upon qualifications, 457; raised 
to £200 value of freehold or £10 
income, 457; £400 value of 
freehold, or £20 income re- 
quired, 459; must take oath 
against bribery, 459; £40 value 
of freehold, or 40 shilling in- 
come required, 460; method of 
admission, 461 ; town freemen, 
467-468 ; number of colony free- 
men, 471-472; electors, in col- 
onies generally, 481-482. 

French Huguenots, opposed as 
alien electors in S. C, 132. 

Fundamental Constitutions of 
Carolinas, 85-87; enforced in 
N. C but not in S. C, 87-88; 



not respected, 91 ; in N. C. in- 
fluence upon later legislation, 
88, 97; in S. C, 123; of East 
Jersey, 239-240; not put into 
execution, 241. 
Fundamental Orders of Conn., 
381-384. 

Georgia, reasons for settling, 163; 
terms of royal charter, 163 ; con- 
cessions to settlers, 164 ; author- 
ity of Oglethorpe, 164; power 
of storekeeper, 165; division 
into counties, 165; popular 
meetings, 165-167; reasons for 
failure of colony, 167; develop- 
ment of representative system, 
168-169 ; limited powers of first 
assembly, 169; strange qualifica- 
tions of members, 169-170; sur- 
render of colony to crown, 170; 
establishment of representative 
system in governor's instruc- 
tions, 170-171 ; consideration of 
suffrage, 171; petition to adapt 
qualifications to town popula- 
tion, 172; election act of 1761 
limited suffrage to freeholders 
of fifty acres, 172 ; general con- 
duct of elections, 173. 

Germantown, Pa., scot and lot 
voters in, 279; charter of, 279 
note; origin of borough govern- 
ment in, 293; called a town, 
295 note; borough charter of, 
296-297. 

Gibbes, Robert, elected governor 
of S. C, 142. 

Glen, James, governor of S. C, 
154; opposed to ballot, 156-157. 

Gloucester, N. J., Dutch fort near, 
260. 

Gorgeana, Maine, 351 ; annexed to 
Mass., 352. 

Gorton, Samuel, 431. 

Governors, colonial, instructions 
to. See Instructions. 

Grand Model of government in 
S. C, 123, 128; effect of upon 
representative government, 129. 

Gravesend, L. I., charter of, 190, 
191 ; admission of inhabitants, 
192 ; case of woman suffrage in, 

192. . ~ 

Gray, Edmund, agitator in Ga., 

171. 



5oo 



Index. 



Great Law, the legislation of first 
Pa. assembly, 277. 

Greenwich, Conn., inhabitants ad- 
mitted to Conn, freemanship, 
402. 

Guilford, Conn., agreements of 
settlers, 391 ; origin of govern- 
ment, 394; non-freemen re- 
quired to attend town-meeting, 
397 ; popular movement in, 401 ; 
inhabitants admitted to Conn, 
freemanship, 402. 



Half-Way Covenant, 307, 318-319. 

Halifax, N. C, suffrage in, 115. 

Hamilton, Andrew, governor of 
East Jersey, 242-243. 

Hampton, N. H., town suffrage in, 
359; settlement of, 370; number 
of voters in, 2>72> note 4. 

Harlem, N. Y., popular meeting 
in, 189. 

Hartford, Conn., religious contro- 
versy in, 318; terms of admis- 
sion of inhabitants in, 385 ; re- 
fusal to admit, 385; political 
meeting at, in 1689, 412; land 
matters in, 427. 

Harvey, Governor, forcibly ex- 
pelled from Va., 23 ; restored by 
king, 24. 

Hastings, borough suffrage in, 14. 

Hat, in Pa. used for ballot-box, 
278; in R. I., used for ballot- 
box, 465 note 2, 466. 

Haverhill, Mass., town suffrage 
in, 360; ballot used in, 361 note; 
suffrage concerning land mat- 
ters, 367. 

Haynes, Governor, of Conn., 386. 

Heads of families, as electors, in 
Carolinas, 87; in New Nether- 
land. 175; in Plymouth, 344; 
in Mass. towns, 360 ; in R. I. 
(Providence), 432. 

Heath, Sir Robert, royal charter 
to, 80. 

Hempstead, L. I., charter of, 190, 
191 ; admission of inhabitants, 
192; assembly in 1665, 198; ad- 
mission of inhabitants, 204 ; dis- 
puted election in, 207; suffrage 
in, 225. 

Hereditary freemanship, in R. I., 
454-456, 460-462. 



Heresy, origin of, in Mass., 306; 
defined, 306 note. 

Higginson, Francis, reasons for 
settlement of New England, 
301. 

Hillsborough, borough in N. G, 
erected for political reasons, 
113; suffrage in, 115. 

Honiton, borough suffrage in, 11, 
12. 

Hooker, Thomas, an antagonist to 
Cotton, 380; theory of elections, 
389. 

Householders, as electors in Eng- 
lish towns, 10; in Va., 31; in 
N. C. boroughs, 116; in N. Y. 
towns, 205 ; in N. J. towns, 249, 
256, 257; in Wilmington, Del., 
272 ; in Pa. boroughs, 297 ; in 
Mass. under law of 1664, 324; 
in Mass. local elections, 359, 360, 
362; in militia elections, 366; 
in Conn., 386; in church elec- 
tions, in Conn., 424; in colonies 
generally, 483. 

Housekeepers, only electors in 
Va., 1655, 28. 

House of Commons, English, con- 
stitution of, 2. 

Huguenots, in S. C, their num- 
bers, 131 ; act for naturalization 
of repealed by proprietors, 132; 
growth of opposition to, 133; 
more friendly feeling, 134; nat- 
uralization of, 134, 141. 

Hundred, in Pa., a sub-division of 
county for election purposes, 
284 note 4. 

Independency, spirit of, in N. C. 
in 1760, in. 

Indians, disfranchised in Va., 36; 
disfranchised in N. C, 92. 

Indigenous political organization. 
See Corporations, Self-origi- 
nating. 

Indirect elections, on Long Island, 
199, 200-201 ; in N. J. in 1673, 
235 note; . proposed in Mass., 
311. 

Inducements to settlers, in colony 
of city of Amsterdam on Dela- 
ware, 264; by Wm. Penn, 274. 
See also Concessions. 

Ingle, Richard, leader of Protes- 
tant rebellion in Md., 56. 



Index. 



5oi 



Inhabitant, definition of, in N. Y., 
205; in Mass., 358-359, 360. 

Inhabitants, admission of, in Ply- 
mouth, 343-344 ; in N. H., 378 ; 
in Conn., 385 ; in New Haven, 
400; in R. I. towns, 434-436. 

Inhabitants, as electors in English 
boroughs, 10; the original 
electors in towns, 11; in burg- 
age towns, 12; as electors in 
N. C, 90, 92, 109, no; in N. C. 
boroughs, 116; in N. Y. towns, 
205; in New York City and 
Albany, 208; in Albany, N. Y., 
222-223; in West Jersey, 245.; 
in N. J. towns, 249, 256, 257 ; in 
Pa., 257, 283; in Mass. under 
law of 1664, 324; in Plymouth, 
344; in Mass. towns, 358-360, 
362, 363 ; in church elections, 
364; in Plymouth militia elec- 
tions, 366; in N. H., 374, 375, 
376; in town elections, 378; in 
Conn., under orders of 1639, 
382, 384; term defined, 384; 
conditions imposed by towns, 
385 ; suffrage qualifications 
upon, 386 ; in New Haven, 395 ; 
discontinued by charter of 1662, 
406; in relation to common 
lands, 426-427; in R. I. (Provi- 
dence), 432; in R. I., towns, 
467-468; in colonies generally, 
483. See also Householders. 

Inhabitants-householders, as elect- 
ors in N. J. towns, 249, 253; 
under instructions of royal gov- 
ernors, 254. 

Initiative, popular, of laws, in R. 
I., 444. 

Inspectors of elections, in Del., 
270; in Pa., 282; irregularities 
in choice of, 284; change in 
method of choosing, 285. 

Instructions, of royal governors, 
favor freehold suffrage, in Va., 
34; in Md., 70; in N. C, 96; 
significance of in colonies, 95, 
and in N. C, 96 ; forbid change 
of suffrage qualifications in N. 
C, 107; in S. C, 152, 154; in 
Ga., 170; in N. Y., 210; in N. 
J., 249, 254; but inhabitant 
franchise in towns, ibid.; in Pa., 
278 ; in N. H., 375, 376 ; in col- 
onies generally, 486-487. 



Instrument of Government, Eng- 
lish, terms adopted in Va., 1655, 
28 note. 

Interest in the country, electors 
should be persons who possess, 
in S. C, 148, 149; in N. J., 241, 
253. 

Irregularities in elections, in Eng- 
land before 1430, 5 ; after 1430, 
7; a reason for abolition of 
manhood suffrage in Va., 31 j 
protested against by Governor 
Spotswood in Va., 37 ; a reason 
for restrictive act of 1736, 38; 
in Md., 69, 70; in N. C, 89, 91, 
97, 99, 100, 109, no; in N. C. 
parishes, 119; in S. C, 137, 142; 
in N. Y., 202, 211, 212; in N. J., 
250 ; in Del., 271 ; in Pa., 277, 
283, 284, 285; in Mass., 313; 
laws against in Mass., 330; in 
Conn., 410, 423; in R. I., 443, 

458-459, 465. 
Israel, New Haven likened to, 402. 

Jamaica, L. I., charter of, 191, 193. 

Jamaica, West Indies, laws of, a 
precedent for S. C. legislation, 
145 note. 

Jennings, Samuel, governor of 
West Jersey, 246. 

Jesuits, banished from Mass., 320. 

Jews, as electors in S. C, 138; 
disfranchised in N. Y., 214-215 ; 
in R. L, 452; in colonies gen- 
erally, 476. 

Johnson, Robert, governor of S. 
C, popular movement against, 
149-150; again governor, 154. 

Johnson, Sir Nathaniel, governor 
of N. C, 88. 

Johnston, Gabriel, governor of N. 
G, secures limitation of suffrage 
to freeholders, 100-101 ; desires 
repeal of election laws, 101 ; ap- 
portionment contest, 102-106. 

Joint-tenants, determination of 
their rights as voters in Va., 38, 

41. 

Judicial officers as freeholds in 
England, 9. .'*--.. 

Jurors, grand, to be freeholders, 
in Md., 63. 

Jury, grand, a means of express- 
ing popular opinion in Ga., 165, 
166. 



502 



Index. 



Justices of peace, chosen by popu- 
lar election in N. Y. in 1689, 201. 

Kieft, William, director of New 
Netherland, 175-176; replaced 
by Stuyvesant, 177. 

Kitchen, elections in, in R. I., 466. 

Kittery, Maine, inhabitants admit- 
ted to Mass., 352. 

Labor, price of, fixed in Mass. 
towns, 361. 

Laborers, as electors in Campbel- 
ton, N. C, 117. 

Lancaster County, Pa., election 
evils in, 285 ; town meetings in, 
293 note. 

Lancaster, Pa., borough charter 
of, 296-297; town meeting in, 
297. 

Land, ease of obtaining, influences 
the suffrage, in S. C, 130; in 
N. J., 229-230; assessed valua- 
tion of, in Conn., 412. 

Land matters, suffrage concerning, 
in N. Y., 224-225; in Mass., 
367-369; in N. H., 378; in New 
Haven, approaches a political 
power, 398; non-freemen may 
vote upon, 401 ; in Conn., 426- 
429; in R. L, 436, 469. 

Land system, on Long Island, 
191-192, 205-206; in N. Y., 224- 
225; in Mass., 357-363, 367-369; 
in N. H., 378; in Conn., 38.4- 
386 ; in New Haven, 391 ; in 
Conn., 421, 426-429; in R. I., 

430-437, 469. 

Lands, terms upon which they 
were granted to settlers, in 
Carolinas, 82, 86; in S. C, 123; 
in Ga., 164, 167, 171 ; in N. J., 
228-230 ; in West Jersey, 245. 

Leaseholders, electors, in English 
boroughs, 12; in N. C. bor- 
oughs, 116; in East Jersey fun- 
damentals, 239; in Lancaster, 
Pa., 297. 

Lechford, his estimate of propor- 
tion of freemen in Mass., 214. 

Lectureships, as freeholds in Eng- 
land, 9. 

Leisler, Jacob, heads revolution in 
N. Y., 201 ; favors popular elec- 
tions, ibid.; disfranchises Catho- 
lics, ibid.; calls representative 



meetings, 202; interferes with 
elections, ibid.; called a tyrant, 
ibid.; compared with Mass. 
revolutionists, 337. 

Lewes, Del., called a town, 295 
note. 

Lists of taxables, to be used in 
Pa., by election officers in 
judging qualifications of elect- 
ors, 285. See also Taxables. 

Liverpool, borough suffrage in, 

I* 

Local suffrage, in Va., 45-46; in 
Md., 76-77; in N. C, 94, 117- 
120; in S. C, 1 59-161 ; in New 
Netherland, in Dutch towns, 
188-190, in English towns, 190- 
194, in New Amsterdam, 194- 
196; in N. Y., 202-209, 218- 
226 ; in N. J., 255-257 ; in Del., 
272; in Pa., 292-299; in Mass., 
357-309; in N. H., 377-37^>, in 
Conn., 420-429; in R. I., 467-471. 

London, suffrage in, 14, 359 note. 

Long Island, proxy voting in 
towns, 176 note; English favor 
Stuyvesant, 182 note; English 
Commonwealth proclaimed in 
Gravesend, 186; English towns 
independent of Dutch, 187J 
charters of English towns, 100- 
191 ; town meetings of, 191, 194; 
towns off-shoots of New Eng- 
land, 196; Nicholls promises 
privileges to, 197, 198; proxy 
voting, 207, 210 note. 

Long Parliament, of Va., 29-30. 

Lords of Trade and Plantations, 
favor restricted suffrage in Va., 
38; consider suffrage in N. ]., 
252 ; favor tax-paying basis of 
suffrage in Mass., 332; criticise 
R. I. government and suggest 
union with N. H., 455. 

Lot, election by the, in Ports- 
mouth, R. I., 437. 

Lovelace, Lord, governor of N. J., 

254- 

Ludlow, borough suffrage in, 14. 

Ludwell, Philip, governor of S. 
C, 132. 

Lygonia, Maine, popular govern- 
ment in, 351 ; annexed to Mass.. 
352. 

Lyme, Conn., question of inhabi- 
tancy in, 421 note 4. 



Index. 



503 



Maine, admission of inhabitants 
to Mass., freedom, 309, 320; 
advice from Mass., concerning 
new freemen, 330; government 
at Saco, 350 ; charter of 1639 to 
Gorges, 350; city erected, 350- 
351 ; popular convention and 
combination, 351 ; other settle- 
ments, 351-352; union with 
Mass., 352 ; non-church-mem- 
bers admitted, 352. 

Maiden, Mass., rights of common- 
age in, 367. 

Management of elections by gov- 
ernors, in Md., 63 ; in N. C, 89, 
95 note, 103 note, 104, in ; in 
S. C, 137. 

Marblehead, Mass., defect of free- 
men in, 308. 

Markham, Governor, of Pa., 
adopts new suffrage law, 279. 

Maryland, character of suffrage in, 
48; terms of Baltimore's char- 
ter, 48 ; confusion between free- 
men and freeholders, 48-49; 
first primary assembly, 49; de- 
velopment of representative sys- 
tem, 49-55 ; character of assem- 
blies, 51 ; broad interpretation 
of word freeman, 53; petition 
for woman suffrage, 53-54; 
proxy system, 55 ; disfranchise- 
ment of Catholics during Com- 
monwealth period, 56-58 ; Ingle's 
rebellion, 56; English commis- 
sioners, 57; act for religious 
toleration, 58 note; restoration 
of province to Baltimore, 59; 
Fendall's conspiracy, 60; char- 
acter of period 1640-1661, 60; 
conflicting interests of freemen 
and freeholders, 61-62 ; suffrage 
limited in 1670 by proprietary 
writs, 62; St. Mary's incorpo- 
rated, and used for partisan pur- 
poses, 63 ; quarrel between pro- 
prietor and people, 63-64; popu- 
lar rebellion, 64; theory of suf- 
frage and representation, 65; 
suffrage restricted by law of 
1678, 65-66 ; but law disallowed 
and terms enforced by proprie- 
tary ordinance, 67; Coode's re- 
bellion, 68-70 ; Protestant Asso- 
ciation, 69; Catholics tempora- 
rily disfranchised, 69 ; similarity 



to movement in N. Y., 70; Bal- 
timore's rights forfeited and 
royal government established, 
70; royal instructions limit suf- 
frage to freeholders, 70; elec- 
tion act of 1692, 70-72 ; Catholics 
excluded from assembly, but not 
from suffrage, 71-72; removal 
of seat of government to An- 
napolis, 72 ; suffrage under char- 
ter of Annapolis, 72-73 ; com- 
pulsory voting, 74; restoration 
of Calverts, 74; permanent dis- 
franchisement of Catholics, 74- 
75 ; local suffrage, 76-77 ; parish 
elections, ibid.; summary of 
suffrage provisions, 77-78. 
Massachusetts, reasons for found- 
ing Bay Colony, 300-302; royal 
charter of 1629, 301-302; re- 
moval of charter, 302 ; first com- 
pany meeting in America, 303 ; 
first court of election, 304 ; ad- 
mission of new freemen, 304 ; 
f reemanship restricted to church- 
members, 304-305 ; disadvan- 
tages of, 305; heresy and at- 
tempt to control church organi- 
zation, 306 ; disfranchisement of 
dissenting freemen, 307 ; method 
of admission of freemen, 307- 
310; compulsory freemanship, 
308; magistrates may admit 
freemen, 308-309 ; freeman's 
oath, 309; representative sys- 
tem, 310; ballot and proxy 
voting, 310-312; size of dis- 
franchised classes, 312-313; ap- 
pearance in elections, 3I3~3*4'> 
agitation of Presbyterians for 
extended suffrage, 3*4-317; de- 
mands for English laws, 315; 
extension of town franchise, 
317-318 ; Half-Way Covenant 
and effect upon suffrage, 318- 
319; attitude toward New 
Hampshire and Maine settlers, 
320; attitude toward Jesuits, 
Quakers, and Baptists, 320-321 ; 
correspondence with Charles II., 
322-323 ; royal commissioners in 
Mass., 323-326; law of 1664 for 
admission of non-church-mem- 
bers to freedom, 324; commis- 
sioners' opinion of law, 325 
326; refusal to permit use of 



5<M 



Index. 



Book of Common Prayer, 325 ; 
administration of law of 1664, 
326-329; advice to Maine con- 
cerning new freemen, 330; con- 
test with Randolph and English 
government, 330-334 ; over- 
throw of charter, 334; number 
of freemen about 1685, 334-335 ; 
arrest of Andros, 335; revolu- 
tion of 1689, 335-337 ; extension 
of suffrage in 1690, 33^337) 
reason for failure of religious 
policy of Mass., 337 ; suffrage in 
Plymouth Colony, 337-349 (see 
Plymouth) ; suffrage in the 
northern teritories, 349-353 (see 
Maine and New Hampshire) ; 
Mass. charter of 1691, 353-354; 
suffrage under, 354; number of 
electors under, 355-357 ; com- 
pared with N. Y. and Va., 357; 
local suffrage, 357-369; town 
elections, 357-363 ; community 
of lands a feature of town life, 
357~358; definition of word in- 
habitants, 358-361 ; control by 
central government of town suf- 
frage, 361-363 ; church elec- 
tions, 363-365 ; under charter of 
1629, 364; under charter of 
1691, ibid.; militia elections, 
365-366; voting concerning land 
matters, 367-369; separation of 
inhabitants from commoners, 
367-368; decline of towns as 
economic land corporations, 

369- 

Mayflower, compact on board, 338. 

Meeting-house, in Watertown, 
Mass., town lots to be near, 360 ; 
elections in R. I. held in, 466. 

Merchant Adventurers of Eng- 
land, 455. 

Middletown, Conn., terms of ad- 
mission of inhabitants, 385. 

Milford, Conn., proposed settle- 
ment of inhabitants in Dutch 
territory, 193 ; agreements of set- 
tlers, 391 ; origin of government, 
394 ; non-church-members as 
freemen, 394. 

Militia elections, open to soldiers 
in Va. in 1676, 33 ; in N. Y., by 
popular choice, 201, 204, but dis- 
continued in 1691, 218 note; in 
Mass., 365-366; discontinued in 



1669, 366; in Plymouth, 366; in 
New Haven limited to church- 
members, 395, 400, 425; in 
Conn., 425-426; in R. I., 438 
note, 470-471. 

Miller, Thomas, President, in N. 
C, 89. 

Ministers, how chosen in Mass., 
364; in N. H. by freeholders 
alone, 378 ; in Conn., 424. 

Minors, as electors in Conn., ex- 
istence denied, 383. See also 
Boys, Young People. 

Mob, as electors in Va., 37. 

Monmouth, N. J., charter of, 249 
note. 

Monmouth Patent, in N. J., origin 
of, 231 ; patentees refuse to re- 
patent land, 232; excluded from 
suffrage, 233 ; refuse to pay 
quit-rents, ibid.; general treat- 
ment of inhabitants, 238. 

Moody, Lady, as elector in 
Gravesend, L. I., 192-193, 473. 

Moore, James, elected governor in 
S. C, 136. 

Mortgagees, as electors, 8. 

Mortgages upon freeholds in N. 
Y., effect upon suffrage, 213. 

Mulatto, definition of, in Va., 36 
note. 

Mulattoes, disfranchised in Va., 
36 ; in N. C, 92. 

Naturalization, in S. C, of Hu- 
guenots, 132, 133; favored by 
assembly, 134 ; acts for, 134, 141 ; 
act for in Pa., 276, 281 ; in 
Mass., 355. See also Citizenship. 

Nature, laws of, justify the repre- 
sentative system, 184 ; appealed 
to in N. J., in 1704, 251. 

Negroes, as real estate in Va., 36; 
disfranchised in Va., 36; in N. 
C, 92; restriction in N. C. re- 
moved, 100-101 ; as electors in 
S. C, 137. See also Race. 

New Amstel, Del., 267. 

New Amsterdam, popular meeting 
in, 189; burgher government es- 
tablished, 194 ; exclusive burgh- 
errecht established, 195. 

New England Confederacy, dis- 
cusses attack upon New Amster- 
dam, 398. 

New England, Dominion of, 377. 



Index. 



505 



New England, laws of, copied by 
Governor Nicholls of N. Y., 
202-203. 

New Hampshire, dissenters in, ad- 
mitted to Mass. freedom, 320; 
suffrage in, under Mass. juris- 
diction, 349, 353; early settle- 
ments in, 370; town agreement 
of Exeter, 370; of Dover, 371; 
of Portsmouth, 371 ; no union 
of towns, 371-372', union with 
Mass., 372 ; non-church-mem- 
bers admitted, 372; suffrage 
under Mass. rule, 373; royal 
government established, 373 ; 
suffrage under President Cutt, 
373-374 > suffrage qualifications 
by law of 1680, 374; royal in- 
structions require freehold 
qualification, 375; but are not 
uniformly enforced, 375-376 ; 
act of 1699 established freehold 
or personal property requisite, 
376 ; act of 1727 limited suffrage 
to freeholders, 377; local suf- 
frage, 377-37&', church elec- 
tions, 378; similarity of N. H. 
to Mass. legislation, 378-379. 

New Haven, Conn., founds settle- 
ment on Delaware, 260; theo- 
cratic ideals of, 390-391 ; self- 
incorporating communities, 391 ; 
origin of government in New 
Haven, 391-394; religious re- 
strictions upon freemen, ibid.; 
origin of government in Milford, 
Guilford, and Southold, 394; 
fundamentals of 1643, 395; ne- 
cessity for controlling churches 
as sources of freemanship, 396; 
disfranchisement of members of 
irregular churches, ibid.; proxy 
system established, 397 ; dissatis- 
faction over suffrage restric- 
tions, ibid.; attempts to extend 
suffrage, 397-402; included un- 
der Conn, charter of 1662, 402- 
403 ; negotiations for union, 403- 
404; Conn, makes no concession 
upon religious qualifications, 
404-405 ; freemen incorporated 
into Conn., 410. 

New Jersey, lack of political life 
under Dutch, 227 ; grant to Lord 
Berkeley and Sir George Car- 
teret, 228 ; concessions to set- 



tlers, 228-231 ; ease of obtaining 
land, 229-230; suffrage in con- 
cessions, 230; difficulty of de- 
fining freehold, 231 ; the 
Nicholls's grants, 231-232; those 
refusing to re-patent lands to be 
disfranchised, 232-234; Dutch 
reoccupation, 234-235; division 
of province, 235; quintipartite 
deed, 235-236; suffrage and 
representation in East Jersey, 
236-243 (see East Jersey) ; suf- 
frage and representation in 
West Jersey, 243-248 (see 
West Jersey) ; transfer of Jer- 
seys to crown, 248-249: rights 
demanded for settlers, 248; 
royal instructions establish rep- 
resentative system and freehold 
suffrage in 1702, 239; election 
evils, 250; objections to free- 
hold qualification, 251 ; new in- 
structions, 252; proprietors op- 
pose personal property qualifica- 
tion in interesting paper, 253- 
254; election act of 1709, 254- 
255; local suffrage, 255-258. 

New Netherland Company, 174. 

New York, under the Dutch, 174- 
196; the provincial suffrage, 
174-188; patroon concessions, 
174; the Twelve Men, 174-175; 
the Eight Men, 175-177; ap- 
pointment of Governor Stuy- 
vesant, 177; the Nine Men, 177- 
181 ; representative conference, 
179 ; increased inducements to 
settlers, 180; general character 
of representative boards, 181 ; 
representative assembly of 1653, 
182-185 ; laws of nature appealed 
to against Stuyvesant's actions, 
184 ; assembly of 1654, 185-186 ; 
encroachments of Conn., 186; 
favorable concessions to English 
settlers, 186; assembly of 1663, 
187; President Scott on Long 
Island, 187-188; last assembly 
of New Netherland, 188; local 
elections under Dutch, 188-196; 
in the Dutch towns, 188-190 ; in 
the English towns, 190-194; 
woman suffrage, 192; in New 
Amsterdam, 194-196; the suf- 
frage in the early English 
period, 1664-1691, 196-209; 



506 



Index. 



Duke of York's charter, 196- 
197; articles of capitulation, 
197; promise of Nicholls to 
Long Island settlers, 197-198; 
Hempstead assembly of 1665, 
198; Duke of York in 1683 au- 
thorizes an assembly, 199; unit 
of representation in 1683, 199; 
suffrage limited to forty-shilling 
freeholders and freemen in cor- 
porations, 200; Leisler's rebel- 
lion, 201-202 ; Catholics dis- 
franchised, 201 ; local suffrage 
in Duke's Laws, 202-209; 
Nicholls refuses to adopt free- 
man principle of New England 
colonies, 203; terms of admis- 
sion to towns, 204; elective pf- 
ficers, 204 ; confusing terms ap- 
plied to electors, 205; all be- 
lieved to be equivalent to in- 
habiting freeholders, 205-206 ; 
no definite amount of freehold, 
206-207; extension of Duke's 
Laws to upper Hudson and to 
Delaware settlements, 208 ; elec- 
tions in N. Y. city, 208-209; 
suffrage in later English period, 
1691-1775, 209-226; the pro- 
vincial suffrage, 209-^218; royal 
instructions as basis for suf- 
frage, 209; act of 1691 limits 
suffrage to forty-shilling free- 
holders, 210 ; election difficulties, 
1698-1702, 211-213; act of 1699 
changes qualification to £40 
value of freehold, 212; defini- 
tion of freehold, 213; disfran- 
chisement of Catholics, 214; of 
Jews, 214-215 ; non-residents as 
electors, 215-216; plural voting, 
215-217; number of electors, 
217-218, 357; local suffrage, 
218-226; county elections, 218- 
220; city elections, 220-223; 
terms of admission of freemen 
in N. Y. city and Albany, 222; 
town elections, 223 ; parish elec- 
tions, 224; suffrage concerning 
land matters, 224-225; general 
character of local electors, 225- 
226; number of electors com- 
pared with New England, 357. 
New York City, municipal gov- 
ernment organized by Governor 
Dongan, 208; elections in. 220- 



222 ; parish elections in, 224 ; 
see also New Amsterdam. 

Newark, N. J., charter of, 249 
note. 

Newbern, N. C, suffrage in, 114, 
115. 

Newbury, Mass., ballot used in, 
361 note. 

Newcastle, Del, court established 
at, 267 ; analysis of activities of 
court, 268 ; town officers at, 268 ; 
called a town, 295 note. 

Newcastle-on-Tyne, borough suf- 
frage in, 14. 

Newport, R. I., union with Ports- 
mouth, 431 ; town agreement, 
433 5 organization of govern- 
ment, 437; union with Ports- 
mouth, 438; proxy system in, 
443> 463; elections held in, 464, 
466 ; number of freemen in, 472. 

Newtown, L. I., charter of, 190, 
191. 

Nicholls, Colonel Richard, prom- 
ises popular government to 
Long Island, 197, 198; publishes 
Duke's Laws, 198; excludes 
freemanship principle from the 
Laws, 202-203; opposes grant 
of N. J. to Berkeley and Car- 
teret, 228; gives lands in ty. J. 
to settlers, 231. 

Nicholson, Sir Francis, governor 
of Md., 72) of S. C, 152-153; 
of N. Y., 209. 

Nine Men, the, in New Nether- 
land, 177-180. 

Nobility, lack of, in Carolinas, 89 ; 
place of, in Carolina parliament, 
128; in East Jersey, 240. 

Nomination of officers, method of, 
in Mass., 311, 312 note; in 
Conn., 417-418, 425; see also 
plural nomination. 

Non-conformists, as electors in 
Conn., church elections, 425. 

Non-freemen, in Mass. invited by 
royal commissioners to attend 
election, 325; in Guilford, 
Conn., required to attend town- 
meeting, 397. 

Non-jurors, in R. I., 449. 

Non-residents, as electors, in Eng- 
land, 6, 14-15; in borough of 
Campbelton, N. C, 116; in N. 
Y., 215-216. 



Index. 



507 



Northampton County, England, 
proportion of non-resident 
voters in, 6. 

North Carolina, general character 
of history, 79"8o; suffrage un- 
der proprietory government, 80- 
95 ; royal charters, 80-81 ; con- 
cessions to settlers, 81-82; pro- 
prietors oppose a close corpora- 
tion, 81-83 ; concessions of 1665, 
83; use of terms freeman and 
freeholder, 83 ; attempt to divide 
province into colonies, 84; ori- 
gin of representative organiza- 
tion, 84-85; fundamental con- 
stitution of 1669, 85; terms 
respecting the suffrage, 86 ; suf- 
frage terms in later fundamen- 
tals, 86-87; status of funda- 
mentals in South and North 
Carolina, 87-88; suffrage down 
to 171 5, 88-91 ; governors' com- 
missions, 88-89; irregularity in 
elections, 89; biennial assem- 
blies, 90; suffrage affected by 
Cary's rebellion, 91 ; election 
writs, 90-^91 notes; law of 1715 
disfranchises negroes, and re- 
quires electors to be tax-payers, 
91-92 ; beginning of town repre- 
sentation, 93 ; suffrage in towns, 
93794 ; local suffrage under pro- 
prietary government, 94; sum- 
mary of suffrage during proprie- 
tary period, 95; suffrage under 
the royal government, 95-121 ; 
use of royal instructions and ve- 
toes in N. C, 96; instructions 
limit suffrage to freeholders, 96 ; 
Burrington's quarrel with peo- 
ple over suffrage and representa- 
tion, 96-100 ; he erects new pre- 
cincts, 98; sends writs to free- 
holders only, 98-99 ; act of 1735 
limits suffrage to freeholders of 
fifty acres, 100; elaborate elec- 
tion act of 1743, 101-102; pro- 
vision for ballot, 102 ; apportion- 
ment contest, 102-107 ; Governor 
Johnson favors southern part of 
province, 103-104; attitude of 
English government toward N. 
C. legislation, 106; number of 
repealed laws, 106 note; instruc- 
tions to new governor, 106-107; 
repeal of election law leads to 



confusion, 108-110; election ir- 
regularities, no; election act of 
1760 establishes freehold suf- 
frage and abolishes ballot, in; 
the Regulator movement and 
the suffrage and ballot, 112-113; 
theory of representation, 113; 
borough franchise, 114-117; 
local suffrage, 1 17-120; parish 
elections, 1 18-120; summary of 
suffrage in N. C, 120-121. 

Northern Liberties, Pa., incorpo- 
rated district of Philadelphia 
Co., 299. 

Nottingham, borough suffrage in, 
14; 456 note 3. 

Number of voters, in Va., 46-47; 
in S. C, 1669-1670, 124, 129; 
in New Netherland, 175; in N. 
Y., 217-218; in N. J. in 1665, 
227; in Pa., 286-292; city and 
country compared, 289, 292 ; rea- 
son for disparity, 290 note; in 
Mass. in 1630, 303, 304 ; in 1640, 
313-314; in 1664, 326, 328-329; 
in 1684, 334-335; in 1690, 336- 
337; in Plymouth, 348~349; in 
Maine, 352 note; in Mass. under 
charter of 1691, 355~357; in 
New England compared with 
N. Y. and Va., 357 ; in N. H., in 
1680, 373; in Conn. 1639 to 
1662, 387 and note 4, 388, 390; 
in New Haven, 393, 398; in 
Conn., after 1662, 408, 418-420; 
in R. L, 453, 471-472; in col- 
onies generally, 487-488. 

Number of representatives, in Pa., 
274, 282. 

Oath of allegiance required of 
electors in Md., 51, 56; in N. J., 
232; in Mass., 322, 325, 33^, 332 ; 
in Plymouth, 342, 347; in N. H., 
374 ; in Conn., 409 ; in R. I., 448. 

Oath of fidelity, required of elect- 
ors in Mass., 308; oath given, 
309 note; of inhabitants, 309; 
of town electors, 318; in Ply- 
mouth, required of freemen, 342, 
343, 345, 366; in Mass 362, 366; 
in Conn., 382-384, 386, 410; in 
New Haven, 395, 400; in R. I. 
towns, 435 I in R- L, 442. 

Oath of inhabitants, in Mass., 359 ; 
in Plymouth, 342, 343- 



508 



Index. 



Oath of supremacy, in Mass., 331. 

Oaths as qualifications of electors, 
in England, 3, 4, 6, 7 ; in Va. in 
1652, 27; in Md., 75; in N. C, 
92, 108; in S. C, 140, 146; in 
Ga., 173; in N. Y., 212, 214; in 
R. I., 458; against bribery, 459, 
461. 

Oaths required of representatives, 
92. 

Office-holding, as qualification of 
electors, in Mass., 362 ; in Conn., 
386, 388. 

Officers, elective under Duke's 
Laws in N. Y., 204. 

Oglethorpe, James, military gov- 
ernor of Ga., 164, 165, 167. 

Ordinance, proprietary, fixes suf- 
frage qualifications in Md., 67. 

Orthodoxy, defined in Mass., 306, 
and note; required of electors 
in Mass. in law of 1664, 324; 
in Plymouth, 346; required of 
ministers in Mass., 364 ; in New 
Haven, required of all churches, 
396. 

Outvoters. See Non-residents. 

Owen, William, leads factious op- 
position in S. C. in 1669-1671, 
124-126. 

Oxford, University of, suffrage in, 
16. 

Oyster Bay, L. I., union with New 
Haven, 401 note. 

Parish elections, in Va., 33, 45 ; in 
Md., 76-77; in N. C., 1 18-120; 
voting in, made compulsory, 
119; compared with other south- 
ern colonies, ibid.; in S. C., 
159-160; compared with other 
southern colonies, 160; in N. 
Y., limited to inhabiting free- 
holders, 224; in N. H., by tax- 
payers, 378. See also Church 
Elections. 

Parliament, proposed for Va., 18; 
in Carolina, 123-127. 

Parochial burgesses, in Va., 24-^26. 

Particulars, a class of settlers in 
Plymouth, 339; a dissatisfied 
faction, 340. 

Partners, admission of in Ply- 
mouth, 303 note. 

Patroons. concessions to, in New 
Netherland, 174. 



Patuxett, R. I., freemen admitted, 
441. 

Penn, William, interested in West 
Jersey, 244; receives charter 
from king, 273 ; promises self- 
government to his settlers, 274; 
laws made in England, 275; 
arrival in province, 276 ; govern- 
ment restored to, 279 ; grants 
charter to province, 281 ; by 
charter receives power to incor- 
porate towns, 294. 

Pennsylvania, position of Dela- 
ware lands before Penn's con- 
trol, 273 ; royal charter to Penn, 
273 ; Penn's promise of popular 
government, 274; plans of gov- 
ernment, 274; freeman and 
freeholder, 275 ; qualifications of 
electors in Laws made in Eng- 
land, 275 ; naturalization act, 
276; suffrage under the Great 
Law, 276; use of ballot, 2J7- 
278 ; Penn dispossessed of his 
territory, 278 ; Fletcher's frame, 
278-279 ; Markham's frame, 
279; fines upon counties re- 
fusing to elect representatives, 
280; separation of lower coun- 
ties, 280-281 ; suffrage act of 
1700, 281 ; act of 1706, 282-283; 
election evils, 283-285 ; effort to 
strengthen election laws, ibid.; 
tax-list of 1693, 286; tax-list of 
1754, 287 ; tax-list of 1776, 288- 
289; tax-list of 1775, 200-291; 
observations upon the suffrage 
based on these lists, 200-292; 
local suffrage, 292-299 ; difficul- 
ties of subject, 292-293; early 
local organization, 294-295 ; 
county elections, 295 ; township 
officers, 296; borough elections, 
296-297; suffrage in Philadel- 
phia, 297-208 ; incorporated dis- 
tricts, 208-299. 

Perth Amboy, N. J., suffrage in, 
249, 253, 255. 

Petition, from non-freemen in 
Mass., 316; of N. H. settlers for 
union with Mass., 376. 

Petition of Right, of Pa., 278. 

Philadelphia, Pa., scot and lot 
voters in, 278; charter of, 279 
note; election irregularities in, 
282 ; effect of property qualifica- 



Index. 



509 



tion upon voters in, 282 note; 
petitions against election law, 
283; bloody election in, 285; 
lists of taxables in, 286-292; 
number of electors, ibid.; rea- 
son for restricted suffrage, 290 
note; compared with N. Y., 292; 
absence of early records, 293 ; 
called a town, 295 note; may 
have received a borough charter, 
296 note 2 ; charter of 1691, 297 ; 
charter of 1701, 297 ; absence of 
popular government in, 297-298 ; 
administrative boards in, 298; 
electors in local elections, ibid. 

Pirates, as electors in S. C, 133. 

Places of election, in England, 7. 

Plebsbytery, 316. 

Plowden, Sir Edmund, palatinate 
of, 260. 

Plural nomination for office, in N. 
C, 117, 118; in New Nether- 
land, 177, 178, 189, 195, 196; in 
N. J., 227, 235, 242 ; in Del., 262, 
264, 268, 271 ; in Pa., 283, 295 ; 
in Plymouth, 366. 

Plural voting, in England, 6; per- 
mitted in Va., 39; permitted in 
S. C. after 1745, 156; in N. Y., 
based on English custom, 215 
and note 2, 216-217; in Pa., pro- 
posed for Philadelphia inhabi- 
tants, 282 ; instances of illegal, 
285 ; adopted by the Free So- 
ciety of Traders in Pa., 294; in 
N. H., 377; in Conn., illegal, 
to be punished with fine, 410. 

Plymouth, admission of partners, 
303 note; Mayflower compact, 
338; nature of association, ibid.; 
stock company, 339-340; gen- 
eral and particular settlers, 340; 
latter admitted to corporation, 
341 ; code of laws of 1636, 341- 
342 ; position of freemen, 342 ; 
control over town inhabitants, 
342-343; religious qualifications, 
343~344> non-freemen as eject- 
ors, 344; inhabitants admitted 
irregularly, 344-345; terms of 
admission of freemen, 345~346; 
religious qualifications, 346-347; 
royal commissioners' visit, 347"" 
348; religious liberty, ibid.; 
number of freemen, 348-349; 
included under Mass. charter 



of 1691, 353; local elections, 
357~369 passim. 

Political tests as qualification of 
suffrage, in England, 3; in 
Mass., 362. 

Polls, method of taking in Eng- 
land, 7; time for holding in 
N. C, 102; in S. C, 141, 145; 
method of conducting in N. Y., 
212; time for holding, 217; in 
N. J., 250 ; in Del., 270 ; in Pa., 
282. 

Poll-tax, importance of, in N. C, 
92. 

Pomfret, borough suffrage in, 13 
note. 

Popular elections, of governor, in 
Va., 23 ; of governor, proposed 
in Dutch concessions, 186 note; 
of " President" John Scott on 
Long Island, 187; of president, 
in N. J., in 1672, 234; did not 
exist in Swedish settlements on 
Delaware, 259-261 ; beginnings 
of under the Dutch, 262; fa- 
vored by Stuyvesant, 262 note; 
demand for, 263 note; popular 
election in colony of city of 
Amsterdam, 264; absence of 
under Duke of York's govern- 
ment, 267-268; non-existent on 
Delaware before Penn's time, 
274; promised by Penn, 274. 

Popular meetings, in Dutch settle- 
ments on Delaware, 262, 263. 

Portsmouth, N. H., settlement 
of, 370; compact of settlers, 
371 ; requests union with 
Mass., 372; number of voters 
in, 373 note 4. 

Portsmouth, R. I., union with 
Newport, 431 ; town agreement, 
433 ," organization of govern- 
ment, 437 ; union with Newport, 

438 ' , t • 

Potential voters, number of, in 

Mass., 356-357- 

Potwallopers, defined, 11 ; as elect- 
ors in England, ibid. 

Preparatory meeting, in R. I., for 
admission of freemen, 450 note 
2. 

Presbyterians, in Mass., demand 
political rights in 1646, 315. 

Printz, Governor, of New Sweden, 
261. 



5io 



Index. 



Probation, term of, required of 
freemen, in Mass., admitted 
under law of 1664, 330 ; repealed, 
330 note, 333 ; required of free- 
men, in Plymouth, 345, 346; in 
Conn., 408-409; abolished, 413; 
in R. I., three months, 461. 

Property, general, as qualification 
of electors, attempt to obtain in 
Va., 30; in S. C, 146; pro- 
posed in Mass. in 1646, 316; in 
Plymouth, 347; in Mass. town 
elections, 362, 363; in N. H.,.in 
1680, 374; in Conn., 386, 404, 
408-409; in R. I., 448-449; in 
colonies generally, 478. 

Property, personal, as qualifica- 
tion of electors in Md. in 1670, 
62, 71 ; in S. C. in 1692, 132 ; 
opposed by proprietors, 133 ; 
again enacted, 135 ; an alterna- 
tive to freehold, 140; in East 
Jersey fundamentals, as alterna- 
tive to freehold, a rented house 
and £50 stock, 239 ; favored by 
governor in N. J., 251, 255 ; £50, 
accepted by Board of Trade, 
252 ; opposed by proprietors, 
253-254; in Del., £40, 270; in 
Pa. in 1694, £50, 279, 281 ; in 
1705, 282; in Mass. under char- 
ter of 1691, 354; controversy 
concerning amount, ibid.; in N. 
H. in 1699, 376 '■> in Conn, in 
1659, 388; in 1702, £40, 414; in 
colonies generally, 480-481. 

Property, real, as qualification of 
electors. See Freehold. 

Property, taxable, S. C. in 1717, 
149; in 1721, 153; in 1734, 154; 
in 1739, ibid.; in 1759, 158. 

Proportional voting, in Mass., 
concerning land matters, 368 ; in 
N. H., 378; in Conn., 427-428; 
in Providence, R. I., 435. 

Proprietors, as electors in West 
Jersey, 245 ; opposed extension 
of suffrage, 253 ; responsible for 
high suffrage qualifications, ibid. 

Proprietors of town lands. See 
Corporations, Economic, and 
Commoners. 

Providence, R. I., agreement 
among settlers, 432; admission 
of inhabitants, 434-435 ; quarter- 
right inhabitants, 435 ; freemen 



in, 436; organization of govern- 
ment, 437; freemen admitted, 
441 ; laws read in town meet- 
ing, 445 ; commoners in, 469 ; 
number of freemen in, 472. 

Proxy voting, illegal in English 
elections, 3; permitted in House 
of Lords, 3 note; in Va., 22; for- 
bidden, 26; in Md., 50-55; dis- 
courages personal attendance, 
130; arose in S. C, 130; op- 
posed by proprietors as contrary 
to English precedent, 131 ; for- 
bidden, 140; in Barbadoes, 141 
note; not adopted in New 
Netherland, 176 ; existed on 
Long Island, 176 note, 192, 207, 
210 note; in Mass., 311 ; only a 
method of balloting, ibid.; in 
Plymouth, 349 note; in New 
Haven, 397; in Conn., discon- 
tinued for a time under charter 
of 1662, 407; restored, 411; 
again temporarily forbidden, 
413; general history of, 416-417; 
concerning land matters, 429; 
in R. I., 437-438, 439. 442~444, 
447, 463-467; Lord Bellomont 
believes it illegal, 466 note 7. 

Public Houses, thrown open at 
election times in Pa., 285. 

Purchasers, in Providence, R. I., 
469. 

Puritans, ideals of, 300 ; motive 
for founding colony of Mass., 
300-301 ; political ideals of, 304- 
305 ; church organization, 363- 
364; early settlers of Conn., 380; 
their persecution of dissenters, 
430. 

Quakers, excluded from Hemp- 
stead, L. L, 192 ; cause dis- 
turbances in elections, ibid.; in 
Mass., measures against, 320- 
321 ; in Mass., change in atti- 
tude toward, 330; in Plymouth, 
disfranchised, 346 ; restored to 
franchise, 347 ; in Conn., ex- 
cluded from church elections, 
when they do not contribute to 
support, 424; disfranchised, in 
colonies generally, 475. 

Qualifications of electors. See Age, 
Borough Franchise, Character, 
Citizenship, Freehold, Freemen, 



Index. 



5i 



Inhabitants, Oaths, Property, 
Race, Religion, Residence, Sex, 
Tax-paying. 

Quarry, Colonel, reports election 
irregularities in N. J., 250; ad- 
vises Board of Trade respecting 
N. J., 254. 

Quarter-right inhabitants, in 
Providence, R. I., 435, 469. 

Quintipartite deed, between N. J. 
proprietors, 235. 

Quit-rents, proprietary, in N. J., 
influence the suffrage, 231, 233, 
241-242. 

Quorum of assembly, in N. C, 92, 
103, 104, 107, no. 



Race, as qualification of electors, 
free negroes, mulattoes, and In- 
dians disfranchised in Va. in 
1723, 36; opposition to dis- 
franchisement in England, 37; 
negroes, mulattoes, and Indians 
excluded in N. C, 92; negroes 
occasionally vote in S. C, 137; 
suffrage limited to white race in 
S. C. in 1716, 146, 153, 155, 157; 
white race in Ga., 172; in col- 
onies generally, 474. 

Raleigh, Sir Walter, royal charter 
to, 80. 

Randolph, Edward, opposes Mass. 
suffrage restriction, 319 note 3; 
general attitude, 330; criticises 
Mass., 331 ; secures separation 
of N. H. and Mass., 373. 

Re-apportionment of representa- 
tives, contest over in N. C, 97; 
opposed by people, 98 ; economic 
reasons for, 103; ordained by 
irregular assembly, 104; refused 
by English government, 107, 
108. 

Referendum, popular, in R. I., 
444-445 ; discontinued under 
charter of 1663, 447. 

Refusal to admit freemen, in 
Conn., 409, 414 ; in R. I., 447 ; to 
admit inhabitants to towns, in 
R. I., 467 note 2. 

Refusal to elect representatives in 
Del., 269, 280; punishment for, 
ibid. 

Register of county, in N. C, elec- 
tion of, 117. 



Regulators, in N. C, 112-113. 

Religion, as qualification of elec- 
tors, in England, 3, 4; 
cusant convicts disfranchised in 
Va., 35; Catholics excluded in 
Md., 56, 58, 69, 71-72, 74, 78; 
Christians only as electors in 
S. C, 146, 153, 155; Protestants 
after 1759, 157; conformists 
only in parish elections, 160; 
Catholics disfranchised in N. Y. 
in 1689, 201 ; permanently in 
1701, 214; Jews disfranchised 
in 1737, 214-215 ; in Pa. in 1682, 
belief in Jesus Christ, 275, 276; 
in Mass. must be church-mem- 
bers, 304; evil consequences of, 
305-306; church-membership 
defined, 306-307; Quakers, Bap- 
tists, and opposers of church 
laws disfranchised, 320-321 ; op- 
posed by Charles II., 322-323, 
and by his commissioners, 
323-326; effect of law of 1664, 
324; Randolph's opinion of, 
331 ; denied by Mass. agents, 
331 ; members of Church of 
England not excluded, 333 ; 
electors must be Protestants, 
333; in force in 1690, 336; but 
not after charter of 1691, 337; 
in Plymouth, 343-344; mem- 
bership in approved churches, 
346; in Mass., not required of 
Maine inhabitants, 352; but 
later restored, ibid.; repealed by 
charter of 1691, 353~354; but 
foreign Catholics excluded, 355; 
church elections, only communi- 
cants could vote, 364; later at- 
tendants, ibid.; not enforced in 
N. H. towns, 372; in N. H., 
Protestants only in 1680, 374; 
in early Conn., 384-385, 3%> ; m 
New Haven, 390-405 ; . proposed 
by Conn, in negotiations with 
New Haven, 404; in New 
Haven, overthrown by Conn, 
charter of 1662, 406 ; royal com- 
missioners oppose, 448 ; in R. L, 
Catholics and Jews excluded in 
1719, 451-452; in colonies gen- 
erally, 475-476. . 

Religious liberty, promised by 
Charles II., 322 ; cause espoused 
by Charles, 323; r °y al com " 



5i2 



Index. 



missioners' opinion upon, 326; 
in Plymouth, 347. 

Reluctance to perform political 
duties, in Mass., 308. 

Rent-charges, as freeholds in 
England, 9. 

Repeal of colonial legislation, in 
N. C, 106 and note; by S. C. 
proprietors, 149, 152; in N. Y., 
by partisan legislature, 212; by 
Queen, 213. 

Representation, theory of, in Md., 
65 ; among N. C. Regulators, 
113; as held by Governor John- 
son in S. C, in 1719, 150; held 
by Stuyvesant in New Nether- 
land, 178, 185 ; by English on 
Long Island, 182 note; by New 
Netherland assembly of 1653, 
184; in N. Y., 213 note 2; in 
assembly of East Jersey, 237; 
held by George Scot in 1685, 
240; in West Jersey, 246; held 
by N. J. proprietors, 253-254; 
by Pa. assembly in 1699, 280; 
in England in eighteenth cen- 
tury, 354; in Conn., 406; on 
Rhode Island, 438-439. 

Representative institutions, first 
assembly in Va., 19-21 ; estab- 
lished under royal instructions, 
23 ; in Md., 50-55 ; among the 
N. C. Regulators, 112-113; in 
S. C., 123, 125 ; favored by pro- 
prietors, 127; early origin of, 
129; origin of, in Ga., 166-168; 
relation to slavery, 168; recog- 
nized by trustees, ibid.; pur- 
pose of according to trustees, 
169; established by royal in- 
structions, 171 ; origin of in 
New Netherland, 174; the 
Twelve Men, ibid.; the Eight 
Men, 176; they demand repre- 
sentative system, 177; Cham- 
ber of Accounts of West India 
Company recommend represen- 
tative government, 177 ; the 
Nine Men, 177-180; States- 
General favor, 180; character 
of early representative boards, 
181 ; proposed assembly of 
Sept., 1653, 182; assembly of 
Dec, 1653, 183-185 ; assembly 
of 1663, 187; of 1664, 188; ori- 
gin of in N. Y., Hempstead 



meeting of 1665, 198; assembly 
of 1683, 199; Leisler's assembly, 
201-202 ; permanently estab- 
lished in 1691, 210; in N. J., 
230, 232; irregular assemblies, 
234 ; Andros assembly, 237 ; un- 
der East Jersey Fundamentals, 
240; conditioned upon payment 
of quit-rents, 242; in West Jer- 
sey concessions, 246-247 ; as 
suggested to king by proprie- 
tors, 248; as adopted under 
royal government, 249; in Pa., 
origin of, 273, 274, 276; origin 
of, in Mass., 310; origin of, in 
Maine, 350-351 ; in N. H., 375, 
376 note 1 ; origin of, in Conn., 
381 ; as determined by charter, 
405 ; in R. I., 438, 440, 442-444, 
446. 

Representatives, apportionment 
of, in S. C, 131 ; character of, 
in N. Y., 211; number of, in 
West Jersey, 247; number of, 
in R. I., 446. 

Representatives, qualifications of, 
in Va., in 1655, 28; in N. C, 
100; in S. C, 147, 148, 151, 153, 
156; in Ga., silk culture re- 
quired, 169-170, 171, 173; in N. 
Y., 212 ; in N. J., proposed, 248 ; 
fixed, 249; opposition to, 251; 
belief in Christ, in Pa., 281 ; in 
Mass., 319 note 4 ; in N. H., 377. 

Residence as qualification of elec- 
tors, early required in England, 
6; but later not enforced, ibid.; 
in English boroughs, 11, 12, 13, 
14; in county, required in Va. 
in 1705, 36; abolished in Va. 
in 1736, 39; in Md., 73; in N. 
C, one year, 92 ; six months, 
100, in ; S. C. proprietors favor 
and repeal law not providing 
for, 133 ; three months in col- 
ony, 136 ; three months in pre- 
cinct, 140 ; six months in prov- 
ince, 146; six months in parish, 
148 ; one year in province, 153, 
155, 157; in Ga., six months in 
province, 172; in N. Y., required 
of freemen electors, 212 ; in 
New York City, 221-222 ; in Al- 
bany, N. Y., 223 ; in Del., two 
years in colony, 270; in Pa. in 
1694, two years in province, 279, 



Index. 



5i3 



282; in Lancaster, Pa., 297; in 
Conn., 383; in colonies gen- 
erally, 477-478. 

Residenters, taxed in N. Y., 223 
note. 

Residents, as electors in early- 
Conn., 382. 

Retford, East, borough suffrage 
in, 14. 

Returns of elections, in N. G, 92. 

Revolutionary movements, in Md., 
in 1689, 69-70; in N. C, 89; 
in S. G, in 1719, 150; in N. Y., 
in 1689, 201-202; in East Jer- 
sey, 242-243 ; in Mass., in 1689- 
1690, 335; in N. H., 375; in 
Conn., in 1689, 412. 

Rhett, William, unpopular friend 
of proprietors in S. C, 143. 

Rhode Island, influence of Mass. 
in forming, 430; indigenous 
political organization in R. I. 
towns, 430-431 ; town associa- 
tions, 431 ; union of towns, 431- 
432 ; town f reemanship ante- 
dated colony f reemanship, 431- 
432; organization of Provi- 
dence, 432 ; town agreements of 
Portsmouth and Newport, 433 ; 
terms of admission of new set- 
tlers, 434-437; development of 
town organization, 437; union 
of towns on Rhode Island, 438- 
439; union under charter of 
1644, 439-440; qualifications of 
freemen, 440-442; ballot and 
proxy system, 442-443; repre- 
sentative system, 443-444 ; popu- 
lar initiative of laws, 444 ; popu- 
lar referendum, 444-445; union 
under charter of 1663, 446; 
terms of charter, 446-447; ad- 
mission of freemen under, 447; 
good character and indefinite 
property qualification upon free- 
men, 448-449 ; compulsory free- 
manship, 450; f reemanship re- 
stricted to Protestant Chris- 
tians, 451-452 ; increase in num- 
ber of freemen, 453; franchise 
limited to freeholders of £100 or 
forty shillings income in 1724* 
454; eldest sons of such free- 
holders also admitted, 454-455 ; 
English precedent for this, 455- 
456 ; effect of paper money upon 



suffrage qualifications, 456-457; 
nominal qualifications increased 
in 1730, 457; stringent legisla- 
tion against fraud in elections, 
457-458; qualifications again in- 
creased in 1746, 458; freemen 
required to be permanently pos- 
sessed of freehold, 458; oath 
against bribery, 459; freeman's 
qualifications based upon procla- 
mation money, 460; elaborate 
election laws of 1762 and 1767, 
460-462 ; summary of property 
qualifications, 462; proxy sys- 
tem and balloting, 463-467; 
ballot evils, 466; local suffrage, 
467-471 ; town elections, 467- 
468; suffrage concerning land 
matters, 469; militia suffrage, 
470-471; number of freemen 
and electors, 471-472. 

Richmond, borough suffrage in, 3 
note, 13 note, 14. 

Rights, natural, appealed to in 
New Netherland, 184; in N. J. 
in 1704, 251. 

Rights, of Englishmen. See Eng- 
lishmen, rights of. 

Rye, borough suffrage in, 14. 

Saco, Maine, settlement at, 350. 

Sailors, as electors in S. G, 138, 
147; excluded, 149. 

Salem, N. J., suffrage in, 253, 255 
note. 

Salisbury, N. G, suffrage in, 115. 

Sandwich, borough suffrage in, 14. 

Sandys, Sir Edwin, favors Puri- 
tans in Virginia Company, 18. 

Sanhedrim, applied to ruling party 
in Mass., 331. 

Sarum, Old, borough suffrage in, 

13- 

Sayle, William, governor of S. C, 
124. 

Scot and lot, payment of, as quali- 
fication of electors, in England, 
11, 15 ; in Pa. under Laws made 
in' England, 275, 276; omitted 
in 1693, 278. 

Scott, John, by popular choice 
elected "president" on Long 
Island, 187, 194- 

Scrutiny, term used for ballot in 
English universities, 16. 

Separatists, 301. 



33 



5H 



hidex. 



Sergeant-major-general, in Mass., 
how elected, 365 note 4. 

Servants as electors in N. C, no; 
in S. C, 137. 147; excluded, 
149; disfranchised in Albany, 
N. Y., 223; when freed, in Pa., 
required to possess only fifty 
acres of land as voters, 276 ; 
vote in Philadelphia, 282 ; as 
electors in Pa., 284; excluded 
from militia elections in Mass., 
365, and in Plymouth, 366. 

Sex, as qualification of electors, in 
England, 2, 3 note; women ex- 
cluded in Va., 35 ; woman suf- 
frage refused in Md., 54; in S. 
C. in 1716, limited to men, 146, 
153, 155, 157; Lady Moody as 
elector in Gravesend, L. I., 192- 
193 ; in Del., male sex required, 
270; in R. I., women in town 
elections, 434 note 1 ; in colonies 
generally, 473~474- 

Sheriffs, election of, in Del., 271 ; 
mode of electing in Pa., 283, 295. 

Silk culture, in Ga., fostered by 
trustees, 164; made a qualifica- 
tion of representatives, 169. 

Simsbury, Conn., land matters in, 
427. 

Slaughter, George, governor of N. 
Y., 209. 

Slaveholders, as electors in S. C, 

153-154. 

Slavery, forbidden in Ga., 164 ; 
petitions in favor of, 166 ; de- 
sire for, leads to popular gov- 
ernment, 168. 

Slaves, value of, compared with 
that of land in S. C., 154. 

Smith, John, in Va., 19. 

Sojourners, taxed in N. Y., 223 
note; perhaps included in term 
inhabitants, in Mass., 359. 

Soldiers, as electors, in Mass., 
365-366 ; in Plymouth, in militia 
elections, 366; in Conn, militia 
elections, 425 ; in militia elec- 
tions, in R. I., 470-471. 

Sons, eldest, of freeholders, in R. 
I., to be admitted as freemen, 
454; English precedent for, 45J. 

Southampton, L. I., terms of ad- 
mission of inhabitants, 204 ; suf- 
frage in, 206, 225. 



South Carolina, division of Caro- 
lina into distinct provinces, 122; 
legal name of S. C, 122 note; 
instructions for settlement of 
government, 123 ; concessions to 
settlers, 123-124; arrival of set- 
tlers and first election, 124; first 
assembly, 125 ; early representa- 
tive organization, 126-127; pro- 
prietors attempt to establish par- 
liaments, 127-129; distinction be- 
tween freemen and freeholders, 
130; Huguenots and the suf- 
frage, 130-132, 133-135; prop- 
erty qualification upon electors 
in 1692, 132 ; law opposed by 
proprietors, 133; naturalization, 
acts, 134, 141-142; election act 
of 1703, 135-136; contest be- 
tween Anglicans and dissenters, 
136-140; members of assembly 
must be communicants of 
Church of England, 139; elec- 
tion act of 1704 fixes suffrage 
qualifications at fifty acres of 
land or £10 personal estate, 140; 
use of ballot in all elections, 
141 ; election evils, 142 ; reasons 
for discontent in 1717, 142-143; 
all elections held in Charleston, 
144; abolished in 1716, 145; 
election act of 1716, £30 prop- 
erty required of electors, Jews 
and negroes excluded, 146; 
paper currency and its effect 
upon suffrage, 147; in 1717 elec- 
tors must hold fifty acres of 
land or pay taxes, 148 ; proprie- 
tors repeal acts of 1716 and 
1717, 149; revolutionary move- 
ment, 150-152; election act of 
1719, 151; of 1721 requires elec- 
tors to possess fifty acres of 
land, or pay twenty shillings 
taxes, 153; meaning of tax-pay- 
ing, 154; qualifications of elec- 
tors increased in 1745. *55; 
plural voting permitted, 156; 
Governor Glen opposes ballot. 
156-157 5 qualifications of elec- 
tors lowered in 1759, l 57'> at 
same time Catholics disfran- 
chised, 157-158; local suffrage, 
159-161 ; parish elections, 159- 
161 ; character of S. C. church. 



Index. 



5i5 



160; summary of suffrage pro- 
visions, 161. 

South Company, Swedish, 260. 

Southold, L. I., agreements of 
. settlers, 391 ; origin of govern- 
ment, 394; popular movement 
in, 400 ; sends deputies to Hart- 
ford, 402. 

Southwark, Pa., an incorporated 
district in Phila. Co., 299. 

Splitting of freeholds, in England, 
8, 9; in Va., 38; in N. Y., 206. 

Spotswood, Governor, of Va., 37. 

Springfield, Mass., method of ad- 
mitting freemen, 309. 

St. Albans, borough suffrage in, 
14. 

St. Mary's, Md., elections in, 63, 
66. 

Stamford, Conn., popular move- 
ment in, 399-400; inhabitants 
admitted to Conn, freemanship, 
402. 

Stephens, Samuel, governor of N. 
C, 85. 

Stockholders, in Plymouth, 339- 

34i. 

Stone, Governor, of Md., 57. 

Strangers, as electors in S. C, 138. 

Stratford, Conn., admission of 
freemen in, 386. 

Strawberry Bank, N. H. See 
Portsmouth. 

Stuyvesant, Peter, governor of 
New Netherland, 177; attitude 
toward Nine Men, 178-179; 
theory of popular government, 
178, 185; last assembly of New 
Netherland called by, 188 ; con- 
quers Swedes on Delaware, 261. 

Sudbury, borough suffrage in, 14. 

Suffrage, extension of, in S. C. 
and Va. before Revolution, 159; 
in N. J., 249 note; demanded in 
N. J. at outset of American 
Revolution, 255; in Mass. not 
advanced by agitation, 318 ; pro- 
posed in 1663, 323 note; in 1690, 
335-337; in Plymouth, 340; in 
New Haven, 410; in Conn, in 
1689, 413. m 

Suffrage, popular, did not exist in 
Delaware lands before Penn's 
time, 273. 

Suffrage, qualifications for. See 
Qualifications of Electors. 



Suffrage, restriction of, favored 
by governor in N. C, 97 ; oppo- 
sition to in N. J., 250, 251 ; in 
Philadelphia, Pa., reason for, 
290 note; in Conn., 389. 

Swaanendael, Dutch settlement on 
Delaware, 259. 

Swedish South Company, 260. 

Synod, Cambridge, 1 646-1 647, 307. 

Tarborough, N. C, suffrage in, 
115. 

Taunton, borough suffrage in, 12. 

Taxables, classes comprising, in 
Va. in 1659, 28 note; defined in 
N. C, 93 note; list of, used in 
Pa. in judging qualifications of 
electors, 285; list for Phila., 
1693, 286; 1754, 287; for part 
of Phila. Co., 1776, 288-289 ; for 
Berks Co., 1774, 289; for Phila. 
Co., 1775, 290-291; number of, 
in Mass., 327-328 ; lists, of Bos- 
ton, 327-328 ; number of, in Ply- 
mouth in 1633, 348; lists of, in 
Conn., used to judge qualifica- 
tions of freemen, 410 note 5. 

Taxation, in Mass., method and 
amount of, 327 ; in Conn., 412. 

Taxation and representation, in 
Va., 32; demand for union of, 
in Mass., 315 ; theory of in Ply- 
mouth, 344. 

Tax-paying, as qualification of 
electors, in England, 8; in Va., 
21, 28; in N. C, 92, 109 note; 
in S. G, 148, 153, *57, 158; in 
parishes, 160; in N. Y., in 1665, 
198 ; in Mass. under law of 1664, 
324, 332, 336 ; in N. H. town and 
parish elections, 378; in col- 
onies generally, 481. 

Tenants as electors in Va. bor- 
oughs, 42-43; in N. C. bor- 
oughs, 114; in N. J. towns, 257. 

Tenth, a political division in N. J., 

244, 245. f . . 

Test oaths, administered to repre- 
sentatives in Del., 270; in Pa., 
281. 

Tinicum Island, Pa., court estab- 
lished at, 267; perhaps contin- 
ued at Upland, 268 note. 

Title, proprietary, an essential 
to a legal freehold in N. J., 231, 
233, 234, 236-237- 



5i6 



Index. 



Town houses, as qualification of 
electors, requirements concern- 
ing, in Va., 41. 

Town lots, as qualification of elec- 
tors, in Va., 38, 39 note; requi- 
sites for " saving" in N. C, 93. 

Town meetings, in N. J., 255, 257; 
not established on the Delaware 
by Duke's Laws, 267; in bor- 
ough of Wilmington, Del., 272; 
in Pa., occasionally existed, 293 
note; in the boroughs, 296-297 ; 
in New England, effect upon 
number of actual voters, 357 ; 
in R. I., 437. 

Town representation, in Va., 26. 

Town suffrage, in Va., 46; in N. 
Y., limited to inhabiting free- 
holders, 223 ; in N. J., 249 note, 
253, 255-257; in Pa., 295, 296 ; 
in Mass., 316; in 1635 limited to 
freemen, 317; extended to some 
non-freemen, 318; in Plymouth, 
345 ; in Mass., 357~363 ; limited 
to freemen, 361 ; non-freemen 
may become electors, 361-362; 
in N. H., 377-378; in New 
Haven, limited to church-mem- 
bers, 395, 420-421 ; in Conn., 
420-423; in R. I., 467-468. 

Towns, military reason for estab- 
lishing, in Ga., 171 ; Dutch, of 
New Netherland, possessed few 
features of popular government, 
189; English, of New Nether- 
land, possessed popular govern- 
ment, 190-191 ; origin of, in 
Mass., 357 note; importance of 
in R. I. institutional develop- 
ment, 431. 

Township, in Pa., doubt as to 
origin of, 293 ; compared with 
New England town, ibid. 

Transient persons, electors in 
Campbelton, N. G, 117; electors 
in S. C, 148; excluded, 149. 

Tregony, borough suffrage in, 12. 

Trenton, N. J., charter of, 256 
note. 

Triennial assemblies, in N. C, 
112; in N. H., 377. 

Trott, Nicholas, unpopular friend 
of proprietors in S. C, 143. 

Trustees, as electors, in England, 
8 ; not to vote in N. Y. in virtue 
of trust freeholds, 213. 



Trustees of Georgia, their powers 
under charter, 163; the board 
abolished, 170. 

Tryon, William, governor of N. 
C, opposes triennial assemblies, 
112; proclamation against Regu- 
lators, 113. 

Twelve Men, the, in New Nether- 
land, 174-175- 

Tynte, Edward, governor of S. C., 
142. 

Unit of representation, parishes 
and counties in Va., 22, 24-25 ; 
in N. C., 93 ; in N. Y., in 1683, 
199; exceedingly large in N. J., 
250. 

University franchise, in Oxford 
and Cambridge, 16; College of 
William and Mary in Va., 44, 
483. 

Upland, Pa., court established at, 
267; analysis of activities of 
court, 268; perhaps a continua- 
tion of court at Tinicum, 268 
note. 

Usselinx, William, 260 note. 

Vestries, select, in N. C, 118. 

View, deciding elections upon the, 
in England, 7; in Va., 35; in 
Pa., 277. 

Virginia, character of early years 
of colony, 17; charters of Vir- 
ginia Company, 17; the company 
called seditious, 17; influence 
of Puritans, 18; improved eco- 
nomic conditions, in Va., 18; 
despotic governors, 19; charter 
of privileges for colony, 19-20; 
ordinance of 1621, 20; first as- 
sembly, 20-21 ; suffrage in early 
elections, 21 ; ballot or proxy 
voting, 22 ; Governor Yeardley's 
rule, 22-23 ; revolution against 
Governor Harvey, 23-24 ; unit of 
representation, 24-25 ; parochial 
burgesses, 25-26 ; compulsory 
viva voce suffrage, 26 ; influence 
of English Civil War, 27-29; 
attempt to limit franchise to 
housekeepers, 28; life council, 
29 ; suffrage under Governor 
Berkeley, 29-30; the Va. long 
parliament, 30; attempt to limit 
suffrage to freeholders, 30; in 



Index. 



517 



1670, limited to freeholders and 
housekeepers, 31 ; Culpepper 
grants, 31-32; causes of Bacon's 
Rebellion, 32 ; Bacon's attempt to 
widen suffrage basis, 33; royal 
instructions of 1676 limit fran- 
chise to freeholders, 33~34; act 
of 1684 adopts this provision, 
34; women and Catholics ex- 
cluded in 1699, 35 ; election de- 
tails, 35-36; negroes excluded 
in 1705, 36; election evils, 37; 
minimum freehold established 
in 1736, 38-40 ; fractional voting, 
40; act of 1762 lowers suffrage 
qualifications, 40-41 ; borough 
suffrage, 42-44; political repre- 
sentation of College of William 
and Mary, 44; local suffrage, 
45-46; number of electors, 46- 
47; compared with Mass., 47, 
357. 

Virginia Company, charters of 
1606, 1609, 1612, 17; changes in 
organization, 18. 

Viva-voce voting, in Va., 22, 27; 
adopted in N. C. in 1760, in; 
made compulsory, ibid.; in N. 
Y., 212, 218; in Pa., 277, 281, 
284; in Mass. town meetings, 
360-361 note; in R. I. towns, 

437- , . 

Vote-houses, term used in some 

English boroughs, 12, 13. 
Voters. See Electors. 
Voters, actual. See Actual. 
Voters, potential. See Potential. 



Wagoners, as electors in Campbel- 
ton, N. C, 117. 

Warwick, R. I., agreement among 
settlers, 431; admission of in- 
habitants, 436; organization of 
government, 437. 

Watertown, Mass., town suffrage 
in, 360; rights of common in, 

367. 

Wells, borough suffrage in, 14. 

Wells, Maine, annexed to Mass., 
352. 

Weobley, borough suffrage in, 12. 

West India Company, Dutch, op- 
poses popular government, 262 
note; cedes land to city of Am- 
sterdam, 263, 265. 



West Jersey, separated from East 
Jersey, 235; general character 
of history, 243; title-changes, 
243-245 ; Fenwick's colony, 245 ; 
concessions to settlers of 1677, 
245 ; political provisions of, 245- 
246 ; suffrage under, 246 ; ballot, 
246; popular participation in 
government, 246-247; represen- 
tation of towns, 247 ; number of 
representatives, 248 ; transferred 
to crown, 248. 

West, John, elected governor in 
Va., 24. 

West, Joseph, chosen governor in 
S. C, 126. 

Westbury, borough suffrage in, 12, 
13. 

Westchester, N. Y., charter of, 
191, 193. 

Wethersfield, Conn., church-mem- 
bership in, 385 ; land matters in, 
427. 

Wheelwright, John, exiled from 
Mass., 307; in N. H., 370; in 
Maine, 372. 

Whorekill, Del., court established 
at, 267. 

Williams, Roger, exiled from 
Mass., 307, 430; articles of as- 
sociation with other settlers, 
431, 432, 434; theory of religious 
liberty, 452. 

Wilmington, Del., Swedish settlers 
near, 261; court established at, 
267; charter of, 272; suffrage 
in, ibid. 

Wilmington, N. G, 114, H5- 

Windsor, Conn., church election 
in, 423; land matters in, 427. 

Winthrop, Fitz-John, governor of 
Conn., 402 ; secures charter, 405. 

Winthrop, John, reasons for set- 
tlement of New England, 300, 
301; elected governor in 1647 
by large majority, 317. 

Woodbridge, N. J., charter to, 
233; land-holders refusing to 
patent lands to be disfranchised, 
233; charter of, 249 note. 

Writs of election, provided for by 
English statute, 7; in M<J., 51, 
53; limit suffrage, 62; conten- 
tion concerning in Md., 63-64; 
terms of, 66; in N. G, 00; cause 
dissatisfaction, 96; in S. G, 136; 



5i8 



Index. 



necessary before people can elect 
representatives, 150; in N. J. 
in 1703 fail to provide for elec- 
tion districts, 250. 
Wyatt, Governor, of Va., 20; con- 
tinues assembly system, 22. 

Yeamans, Major William, pro- 
poses to settle colony in Caro- 
lina, 83. 

Yeardley, Governor of Va., calls 
representative assembly, 20; de- 
sires to continue it, 23. 

York County, Pa., election evils 
in, 285. 



York, Duke of, receives N. Y., 
196; hii representative grants 
terms of capitulation to Dutch, 
197. 

York, Maine, city government in, 
350; annexed to Mass., 352. 

Yorkshire, a county of N. Y., 
197- 

Young people, in Mass. as political 
agitators, 316; in Conn., as 
voters, 423 ; as electors in R. L, 

471. 
Youngs, John, leader of popular 
movement in Southold, L. I., 
400. 



THE END. 



•w 




< < u. 



i'o 









^ *• 







** A*' 




«5^ 








•w .• 



* ^ 



.6* \s> 



s <0 



•YSIfe* • ^ ^ 





:<a 












iff: ^o« c tffi!*' %v^ & ^ < c :£ . 

& °- y.-UaSiX c°-^> A /\.«L'/v 













4°. 








HECKMAN 
BINDERY INC. 

j^l JAN 84 



\a ^y <+> a> . . • <v 



